merrybot wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > hzrn wrote:
> > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't know if
> > people
> > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they do, it
is
> > > asbolutely needed here.
> >
> > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other obsolete
> > concepts
>
> this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that here


Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot?
Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki)

Comment #6: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language

evie (Sat Nov 11 15:39:35 2023)

gleki wrote: > merrybot wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't know if > > > people > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they do, it > is > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other obsolete > > > concepts > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that here > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is <i>being racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............)

Comment #7: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language gleki (Sat Nov 11 16:09:37 2023) merrybot wrote: > gleki wrote: > > merrybot wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't know if > > > > people > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they do, > it > > is > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > obsolete > > > > concepts > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that here > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is <i>being > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see immediately how it can be improved. Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for Roman Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer exist (this was different when Lojban was born). Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just like we have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. Wiktionary has such word just fine. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English Comment #8: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language la lunra (Sun Nov 12 03:41:20 2023) gleki wrote: > merrybot wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't know > if > > > > > people > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they do, > > it > > > is > > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > > obsolete > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that here > > > > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is > <i>being > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > immediately how it can be improved. > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for Roman > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just like we > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has a page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. Wiktionary, being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything new here. The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival and nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to create such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? Do we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? Comment #9: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language la lunra (Sun Nov 12 03:51:58 2023) lunanightfern wrote: > gleki wrote: [...] > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > > immediately how it can be improved. > > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for Roman > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just like > we > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has a > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. Wiktionary, > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything new > here. > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival and > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to create > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? Do > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? As for cinki, it is similar merely by coincidence. There is nothing offensive within the definition nor its etymology. Comment #10: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language gleki (Sun Nov 12 07:25:31 2023) lunanightfern wrote: > gleki wrote: > > merrybot wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't > know > > if > > > > > > people > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they > do, > > > it > > > > is > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > > > obsolete > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that here > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is > > <i>being > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) > > > > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > > immediately how it can be improved. > > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for Roman > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just like > we > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has a > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. Wiktionary, > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything new > here. > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival and > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to create > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? Do > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down voted anyway. How are you going to translate old books where this English word exists? Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in Lojban because it offends employers. Comment #11: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language Curtis W Franks (Sun Nov 12 16:16:15 2023) gleki wrote: > lunanightfern wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't > > know > > > if > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they > > do, > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > > > > obsolete > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > > > > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is > > > <i>being > > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) > > > > > > > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > > > immediately how it can be improved. > > > > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for > Roman > > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer > > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > > > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > > > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be > > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just > like > > we > > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > > > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English > > > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has a > > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and > > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. > Wiktionary, > > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything new > > here. > > > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival > and > > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to > create > > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? Do > > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? > > It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down > voted anyway. > > How are you going to translate old books where this English word exists? > > Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in Lojban > because it offends employers. Having concepts/words for race is necessary. That is why I introduced (the apparently rather disliked) "maska". This word could be okay, but I would really like the English definition to be changed because it makes me extremely uncomfortable. Also, I am not a Black person and thus am not qualified to really discuss whether the word form itself is acceptable; "maska" was my attempt at deriving a zevla ibternally and removing some of the etymological baggage while still being able to address race. Comment #12: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language Curtis W Franks (Sun Nov 12 16:16:33 2023) gleki wrote: > lunanightfern wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't > > know > > > if > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they > > do, > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > > > > obsolete > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > > > > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is > > > <i>being > > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) > > > > > > > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > > > immediately how it can be improved. > > > > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for > Roman > > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer > > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > > > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > > > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be > > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just > like > > we > > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > > > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English > > > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has a > > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and > > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. > Wiktionary, > > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything new > > here. > > > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival > and > > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to > create > > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? Do > > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? > > It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down > voted anyway. > > How are you going to translate old books where this English word exists? > > Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in Lojban > because it offends employers. Having concepts/words for race is necessary. That is why I introduced (the apparently rather disliked) "maska". This word could be okay, but I would really like the English definition to be changed because it makes me extremely uncomfortable. Also, I am not a Black person and thus am not qualified to really discuss whether the word form itself is acceptable; "maska" was my attempt at deriving a zevla ibternally and removing some of the etymological baggage while still being able to address race. Comment #13: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language Curtis W Franks (Sun Nov 12 16:17:19 2023) gleki wrote: > lunanightfern wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't > > know > > > if > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if they > > do, > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > > > > obsolete > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > > > > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is > > > <i>being > > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) > > > > > > > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > > > immediately how it can be improved. > > > > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for > Roman > > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no longer > > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > > > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > > > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would be > > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just > like > > we > > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > > > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English > > > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has a > > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and > > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. > Wiktionary, > > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything new > > here. > > > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival > and > > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to > create > > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? Do > > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? > > It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down > voted anyway. > > How are you going to translate old books where this English word exists? > > Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in Lojban > because it offends employers. Having concepts/words for race is necessary. That is why I introduced (the apparently rather disliked) "maska". This word could be okay, but I would really like the English definition to be changed because it makes me extremely uncomfortable. Also, I am not a Black person and thus am not qualified to really discuss whether the word form itself is acceptable; "maska" was my attempt at deriving a zevla (or, well, actually a gismu in that case) internally but simultaneously removing some of the etymological baggage while still being able to address race. Comment #14: Re: this word absolutely should not be in the language la lunra (Sun Nov 12 17:02:51 2023) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > lunanightfern wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > merrybot wrote: > > > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > > hzrn wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I don't > > > know > > > > if > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if > they > > > do, > > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for other > > > > > obsolete > > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need that > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot? > > > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki) > > > > > > > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry is > > > > <i>being > > > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............) > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see > > > > immediately how it can be improved. > > > > > > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for > > Roman > > > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no > longer > > > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born). > > > > > > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma. > > > > > > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would > be > > > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just > > like > > > we > > > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs. > > > > > > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine. > > > > > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English > > > > > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed has > a > > > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists, and > > > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed. > > Wiktionary, > > > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything > new > > > here. > > > > > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the adjectival > > and > > > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to > > create > > > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people? > Do > > > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our dictionary? > > > > It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down > > voted anyway. > > > > How are you going to translate old books where this English word exists? > > > > Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in Lojban > > because it offends employers. > > Having concepts/words for race is necessary. That is why I introduced (the > apparently rather disliked) "maska". This word could be okay, but I > would really like the English definition to be changed because it makes me > extremely uncomfortable. Also, I am not a Black person and thus am not > qualified to really discuss whether the word form itself is acceptable; > "maska" was my attempt at deriving a zevla (or, well, actually a gismu in > that case) internally but simultaneously removing some of the etymological > baggage while still being able to address race. The same person also made remnrxaustralo and remnrmongolo