What's the deal with me'ispe and bunspe?

[Jonathan Jones]

Why is bunspe defined as sister-in-law and me'ispe is brother-in-law? That's completely backwards.

Specifically, brother-in-law (me'ispe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of the sister of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
and sister-in-law (bunspe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of the brother of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"

What if the spouse of the sister is a woman? Or the spouse of the brother a man? What about the sister or brother of the spouse?

By the current definitions, a woman who is married to a woman with a sister is a brother-in-law, and a woman married to someone with a sister has no lujvo. It also doesn't work for the relationship between a sibling of one spouse and a sibling of the other spouse.

With the above in mind, I suggest the following definitions for the two:

me'ispe: "m1 is the sister-in-law of m2"
bunspe: "b1 is the brother-in-law of b2"
tubyspe: "t1 is the sibling-in-law of t2"

Where in each case the bond (m3/b3/t3) is "x1 is, or is a sibling of, s1, s1 is married to s2, x2 is, or is a sibling of, s2, x1=s1 and x2=s2 is not true."

The definition for m3/b3/t3 given above only accounts for members of the same generation. I don't think that the mothers of the married couple are sisters-in-law, for example, but I may be wrong on that.

In any case, with the suggested definitions:

woman-A is married to man-B. C is A's brother, D is B's sister, E is B's brother

.abu me'ispe dy. .i dy. me'ispe .abu .i .abu me'ispe .ebu .i .ebu bunspe .abu .i by. bunspe cy. .i cy. bunspe by. .i dy. .e .ebu tubyspe .abu

If you think that my definition is better than the current, please go to these links and press the thumbs-up for my definition on the page.

me'ispe bunspe tubyspe

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Pierre Abbat]

On Sunday, March 04, 2012 23:48:44 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Why is bunspe defined as sister-in-law and me'ispe is brother-in-law?
> That's completely backwards.
>
> Specifically, brother-in-law (me'ispe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of
> the sister of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
> and sister-in-law (bunspe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of the brother
> of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
>
> What if the spouse of the sister is a woman? Or the spouse of the brother a
> man? What about the sister or brother of the spouse?

If the spouse of the sister is a woman, she is sister-in-law and me'ispe.
Conversely if the spouse of the brother is a man. The sibling of the spouse cu
spebruna ja spemensi. Whoever wrote the def wasn't thinking that two women
could be married to each other.

> By the current definitions, a woman who is married to a woman with a sister
> is a brother-in-law, and a woman married to someone with a sister has no
> lujvo. It also doesn't work for the relationship between a sibling of one
> spouse and a sibling of the other spouse.

A brother of one spouse cu me'irspebu'a a brother of the other spouse.

Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Sunday, March 04, 2012 23:48:44 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Why is bunspe defined as sister-in-law and me'ispe is brother-in-law?
> That's completely backwards.
>
> Specifically, brother-in-law (me'ispe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of
> the sister of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
> and sister-in-law (bunspe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of the brother
> of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
>
> What if the spouse of the sister is a woman? Or the spouse of the brother a
> man? What about the sister or brother of the spouse?

If the spouse of the sister is a woman, she is sister-in-law and me'ispe.
Conversely if the spouse of the brother is a man. The sibling of the spouse cu
spebruna ja spemensi. Whoever wrote the def wasn't thinking that two women
could be married to each other.

The problem is that it is the gender of the married person that is taken into account, not the gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I am a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of my married sibling.

Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1 marries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-law, and Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or adopted brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in-law, even if neither of them are married.

If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then every sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B, except for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not siblings-in-law.

> By the current definitions, a woman who is married to a woman with a sister
> is a brother-in-law, and a woman married to someone with a sister has no
> lujvo. It also doesn't work for the relationship between a sibling of one
> spouse and a sibling of the other spouse.

A brother of one spouse cu me'irspebu'a a brother of the other spouse.

Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[vruxir]

If you want something which focuses strictly on the gender of the in-law (and uses non-culturally neutral familial terms to describe them), you could use:

.i ko'a terspebu'a mi

"he is my brother-in-law (either my sibling's male spouse or my spouse's brother, according to marriage law in my culture)"

.i ko'a terspeme'i mi

"she is my sister-in-law (either my sibling's female spouse or my spouse's sister, according to marriage law in my culture)"

Gender-neutral and non-specific sibling-in-law:

.i ko'a terspetunba mi

"he/she is my sibling-in-law (sibling's spouse or spouse's sibling, according to marriage law in my culture)"

Non-specific in-law in general:

.i ko'a terspeki'i mi

"he/she is related to me via marriage law in my culture"

Otherwise, I would assume, by my understanding of tanru where the first element modifies the second, that the most basic definitions of me'ispe and bunspe are:

lo me'ispe: sister kind-of spouse -> sister's spouse (gender not specified, so not necessarily brother- or sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo speni be lo mensi)

lo bunspe: brother kind-of spouse -> brother's spouse (gender not specified, so not necessarily brother- or sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo speni be lo bruna)

And then:

lo speme'i: spouse kind-of sister -> spouse's sister (one kind of sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo mensi be lo speni)

lo spebu'a: spouse kind-of brother -> spouse's brother (one kind of brother-in-law)

(shorthand for lo bruna be lo speni)

I do think the current me'ispe and bunspe definitions are misleading in their use of gendered terms, using English terms with complex and ambiguous meanings. If the definition is looking for search hits, then:

Searching for "brother-in-law" should bring up me'ispe, bunspe, spebu'a and terspebu'a

Searching for "sister-in-law" should bring up me'ispe, bunspe, speme'i and terspeme'i

Searching for "in-law" should bring up... lots of things.

mu'o

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, March 05, 2012 03:30:58 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> The problem is that it is the gender of the married person that is taken
> into account, not the gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I am a
> brother-in-law or a sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of my
> married sibling.
>
> Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1
> marries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-law, and
> Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or adopted
> brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in-law,
> even if neither of them are married.
>
> If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then every
> sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B,
> except for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not
> siblings-in-law.

You seem to be unacquainted with different kinship term systems. Inlaws zo'u,
Lojban is descriptive, whereas English is classificatory. There are some
languages in which different terms for "cousin" are used depending on whether
their parents are siblings of the same sex or of different sexes. There's no
reason why Lojban should use the same system as English.

I don't know enough of Hindi, Chinese, or Arabic to say anything about their
kinship terms, but I do know some Spanish and Russian. Both languages preserve
some in-law terms inherited from Indo-European. Russian is more descriptive,
Spanish more classificatory. Spanish has:
nuera: daughter-in-law
yerno: son-in-law
cuñado, cuñada: brother-in-law, sister-in-law (in both directions)
suegro, suegra: father-in-law, mother-in-law
Russian has:
сноха: a man's son's wife
зять: daughter's husband
деверь: husband's brother
свёкор: husband's father
тесть: wife's father
Cognates:
сноха=nuera (and Old English snoru, lost in Modern English)
зять=yerno
деверь (Latin levir, lost in Spanish)
свёкор=suegro (and Old English sweor, lost in Modern English).

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM, vruxir <kex...@gmail.com> wrote:

...I would assume, by my understanding of tanru where the first element modifies the second, that the most basic definitions of me'ispe and bunspe are:

lujvo are not tanru. lujvo are defined words, said definition determined by the creator, and do not necessarily have anything to do with the meaning of any tanru.
 

lo me'ispe: sister kind-of spouse -> sister's spouse (gender not specified, so not necessarily brother- or sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo speni be lo mensi)

a "sister kind-of spouse" is a spouse who is a sister, not a sister of a spouse.

By my definition, {zo me'ispe smuni lu ko'a mensi ko'e lonu speni lu} = "x1 is the sister of x2 by the bond of marriage; x1 is x2's sister-in-law", where {lonu speni} is short for {ko'a goi lo ninmu .onai lo ko'a tunba cu speni lo ko'e tunba .onai ko'e .ije ko'a na speni ko'e}

lo bunspe: brother kind-of spouse -> brother's spouse (gender not specified, so not necessarily brother- or sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo speni be lo bruna)

See above.
 

And then:

lo speme'i: spouse kind-of sister -> spouse's sister (one kind of sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo mensi be lo speni)

lo spebu'a: spouse kind-of brother -> spouse's brother (one kind of brother-in-law)

(shorthand for lo bruna be lo speni)

I do think the current me'ispe and bunspe definitions are misleading in their use of gendered terms, using English terms with complex and ambiguous meanings.

In English, an in-law is someone who is related to a person because of the in-law's family is married to someone of the other person's family. The exact relationship to the person is the same relationship they have to the married member of their own family plus "in-law", with the single exception that the married couple are not siblings-in-law to each other.

The difference between a sister by birth and a sister by marriage (and by extension, all birth vs. in-law relationships) is the bond. For example, A is a sister-by-birth to C, B is a sister-by-marriage:

.abu mensi cy. lodu'u ra .e ri mintu se rirni
by. mensi cy. lodu'u lo by. se lanzu cu speni lo cy. se lanzu
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/sFm8JFgWIrYJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[vruxir]

On Monday, March 5, 2012 3:09:52 PM UTC-5, aionys wrote:

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM, vruxir wrote:

...I would assume, by my understanding of tanru where the first element modifies the second, that the most basic definitions of me'ispe and bunspe are:

lujvo are not tanru. lujvo are defined words, said definition determined by the creator, and do not necessarily have anything to do with the meaning of any tanru.

 

That's correct. However, a lujvo is a compact way to express a useful relationship, and there's only room for one (or very few) lujvo combining a particular set of terms. So it makes sense that if the lujvo is created suboptimally without forethought, it can be changed by consensus, as you proposed. Except we disagree on what modification should be made.

 

lo me'ispe: sister kind-of spouse -> sister's spouse (gender not specified, so not necessarily brother- or sister-in-law)

(shorthand for lo speni be lo mensi)

a "sister kind-of spouse" is a spouse who is a sister, not a sister of a spouse.

I concede that, as a basic definition of "sister kind-of spouse", incestuous marriage is just as conceivable as spouse-associated-with-a-sister. Which meaning would be more frequently referred to in typical conversation, I wonder.

 

By my definition, {zo me'ispe smuni lu ko'a mensi ko'e lonu speni lu} = "x1 is the sister of x2 by the bond of marriage; x1 is x2's sister-in-law"

But it still looks to me like a lujvo relatable to a reversed tanru, where the second element, "speni", is modifying the first element, "mensi"; i.e. mensi co speni "sister of-type spouse"

Like you said, the lujvo doesn't have to resemble any particular tanru, but it would be easier to understand and remember if the ordering didn't seem backwards.

mu'o

[vruxir]

On Monday, March 5, 2012 3:56:00 PM UTC-5, vruxir wrote:

On Monday, March 5, 2012 3:09:52 PM UTC-5, aionys wrote:

a "sister kind-of spouse" is a spouse who is a sister, not a sister of a spouse.

I concede that, as a basic definition of "sister kind-of spouse", incestuous marriage is just as conceivable as spouse-associated-with-a-sister. Which meaning would be more frequently referred to in typical conversation, I wonder.

 

To be fair, "incestuous" implies cultural taboo and possible unlawfulness. Depending on the te speni... lo tabno poi simxu lo nu speni cu ju'ocu'i na'e flapro ja'i lo te speni

[vruxir]

.u'i lo nu zo tunba basti zo tabno cu mapti 

[Jonathan Jones]

I wouldn't consider {speni mensi} or {mensi speni} to be a sister-in-law, but I would consider them equivalent. In a tanru. the x1 (but not necessarily the other places) has to fit the x1 of both the seltau and the tertau. In this case, that means that both {lo speni mensi} and {lo mensi speni} must be both {lo mensi} and {lo speni}, i.e. a married sister, a sister who is also a wife.

By the current definition, {lo me'ispe cu speni lo mensi be lo se speni}: "x1 is married to the sister of x2", {lo bunspe cu speni lo bruna be lo se speni}, "x1 is married to the brother of x2".

As you can see, the current definition isn't based on a tanru either.

[vruxir]

In a tanru. the x1 (but not necessarily the other places) has to fit the x1 of both the seltau and the tertau. In this case, that means that both {lo speni mensi} and {lo mensi speni} must be both {lo mensi} and {lo speni}, i.e. a married sister, a sister who is also a wife.

If the x1 had to fit the x1 of both the seltau and the tertau, then "lo nixli ckule" would be both a girl and a school, and "lo pelnimre tricu" would be both a lemon and a tree.

http://dag.github.com/cll/5/2/

"The most important rule for use in interpreting tanru is that the tertau carries the primary meaning. A “pelnimre tricu” is primarily a tree, and only secondarily is it connected with lemons in some way."

Am I missing a revised rule about tanru? What's your source?

 

By the current definition, {lo me'ispe cu speni lo mensi be lo se speni}: "x1 is married to the sister of x2", {lo bunspe cu speni lo bruna be lo se speni}, "x1 is married to the brother of x2".

As you can see, the current definition isn't based on a tanru either.

Right. The current lujvo definition narrows the meaning past what would be implied by mensi speni / bruna speni, but it is consistent with the tanru (not that it has to be) in making "speni" the primary meaning.

mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Monday, March 05, 2012 03:30:58 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> The problem is that it is the gender of the married person that is taken
> into account, not the gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I am a
> brother-in-law or a sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of my
> married sibling.
>
> Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1
> marries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-law, and
> Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or adopted
> brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in-law,
> even if neither of them are married.
>
> If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then every
> sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B,
> except for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not
> siblings-in-law.

You seem to be unacquainted with different kinship term systems. Inlaws zo'u,
Lojban is descriptive, whereas English is classificatory. There are some
languages in which different terms for "cousin" are used depending on whether
their parents are siblings of the same sex or of different sexes. There's no
reason why Lojban should use the same system as English.

Actually, I can think of one reason for using a classification system.

The brother of a man married to a woman with a sister is said sister's brother-in-law.

"A is B's brother-in-law" is much simpler than "A is the brother of the husband of the sister of B".

That said, who says we need to have only one or the other? I am sure there will be times where a descriptive label is a better choice than a classification label, and vice-versa. At this point in time, Lojban doesn't really have either, and is capable of having both, so I see no reason not to have both systems.
 

I don't know enough of Hindi, Chinese, or Arabic to say anything about their
kinship terms, but I do know some Spanish and Russian. Both languages preserve
some in-law terms inherited from Indo-European. Russian is more descriptive,
Spanish more classificatory.

 

Spanish has:
nuera: daughter-in-law

lo ninmu goi ko'a tixnu ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se rirni
.i ko'a ti'uspe ko'e
 

yerno: son-in-law

lo nanmu goi ko'a bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se rirni
.i ko'a be'aspe ko'e
 

cuñado, cuñada: brother-in-law, sister-in-law (in both directions)

lo nanmu goi ko'a bruna ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi
.i ko'a bunspe ko'e

lo ninmu goi ko'a mensi ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi
.i ko'a me'ispe ko'e

lo prenu goi ko'a tunba ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi
.i ko'a tubyspe ko'e
 

suegro, suegra: father-in-law, mother-in-law

lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu
.i ko'a pafspe ko'e

lo ninmu goi ko'a mamta ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu
.i ko'a mamyspe ko'e

lo prenu goi ko'a rirni ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu
.i ko'a rirspe ko'e
 

Russian has:
сноха: a man's son's wife

lo ninmu goi ko'a fetspe lo bersa be lo nanmu goi ko'e
.i ko'a fetspebe'a ko'e ?

зять: daughter's husband

lo nanmu goi ko'a nakspe lo tixnu be ko'e
.i ko'a nakspeti'u ko'e ?

деверь: husband's brother

lo nanmu goi ko'a bruna lo nakspe be ko'e
.i ko'a bunynakspe ko'e ?
 

свёкор: husband's father

lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu lo nakspe be ko'e
.i ko'a pafnakspe ko'e ?
 

тесть: wife's father

lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu lo fetspe be ko'e
.i ko'a pafyfetspe ko'e ?
 

Cognates:
сноха=nuera (and Old English snoru, lost in Modern English)
зять=yerno
деверь (Latin levir, lost in Spanish)
свёкор=suegro (and Old English sweor, lost in Modern English).

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM, vruxir <kex...@gmail.com> wrote:

In a tanru. the x1 (but not necessarily the other places) has to fit the x1 of both the seltau and the tertau. In this case, that means that both {lo speni mensi} and {lo mensi speni} must be both {lo mensi} and {lo speni}, i.e. a married sister, a sister who is also a wife.

If the x1 had to fit the x1 of both the seltau and the tertau, then "lo nixli ckule" would be both a girl and a school, and "lo pelnimre tricu" would be both a lemon and a tree.

http://dag.github.com/cll/5/2/

"The most important rule for use in interpreting tanru is that the tertau carries the primary meaning. A “pelnimre tricu” is primarily a tree, and only secondarily is it connected with lemons in some way."

Am I missing a revised rule about tanru? What's your source?

I don't remember, honestly. It might've been the LfB, but whatever it is, it is apparently wrong and therefore inconsequential.

 

By the current definition, {lo me'ispe cu speni lo mensi be lo se speni}: "x1 is married to the sister of x2", {lo bunspe cu speni lo bruna be lo se speni}, "x1 is married to the brother of x2".

As you can see, the current definition isn't based on a tanru either.

Right. The current lujvo definition narrows the meaning past what would be implied by mensi speni / bruna speni, but it is consistent with the tanru (not that it has to be) in making "speni" the primary meaning.

mu'o

I see your point. The reason behind {me'ispe} vs. {speme'i} is twofold: One, {me'ispe} is already {poorly} defined, so it makes sense to me at least to rewrite the definition rather than create a new word that actually means what the current definition is intended to mean, and two, {me'ispe} is similar to {fetspe}. In the same way that the rafsi of te irks us (as opposed to the rafsi of se, ve, and xe), I consider {speme'i} to be irksome.

[Michael Turniansky]

I'm not sure, following this thread, if it has been resolved to your
satisfaction, but the problem is simply that the gloss
"sister-in-law/brother-in-law" is inaccurate. (to which I can say,
"so what? the gloss of many words is bad. "cinmo" does not mean
"emotion". It means "feel". "se cinmo" is emotion") So, your sentence

"By the current definitions, a woman who is married to a woman with a

sister is a brother-in-law" isn't accurate. She is a me'ispe. That
relation is very restrictive compared to English (which uses the same
word for two different relationships (sister of spouse, and wife of
sibling), which doesn't have a word in English to describe it. So,
it's the gloss that you have a problem with, not the definition. (btw,
in Langun, the Loglanesque stub-language I created about 18 years ago,
there are three different words for "brother-in-law", depending on
whether it's "brother of wife", "brother of husband" or "husband of
sister" (although I admit I didn't have "husband of brother"))
--gejyspa

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, March 05, 2012 20:34:01 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> One, {me'ispe} is already {poorly} defined, so it makes sense to me at
> least to rewrite the definition rather than create a new word that actually
> means what the current definition is intended to mean, and two, {me'ispe}
> is similar to {fetspe}. In the same way that the rafsi of te irks us (as
> opposed to the rafsi of se, ve, and xe), I consider {speme'i} to be
> irksome.

The rule about lujvo consisting of kinship terms is that, if kinship terms are
stuck together in a lujvo, the meaning of the lujvo is the relation
composition (like function composition) of the meanings of the components. So
"spebunspe" means "is the spouse of the brother of the spouse of". "fetsi" is
not a kinship term, so the rule does not apply to "fetspe".