Re: Zombie

[la gleki]

Just for the record.

ma'a pu stidi

lu norjmive li'u e

lu di'a jmive li'u e 

lu ji'ermorsi li'u e 

On Friday, August 17, 2012 2:01:37 PM UTC+4, Visirus wrote:

Was discussing this in irc and we couldn't come up with a consensus since the word "zombie" seems to mean several different things.

Any suggestions on how to resolve this in order to translate "zombie"?

[rden...@gmail.com]

On , la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just for the record.ma'a pu stidi

> lu norjmive li'u e
>
> lu di'a jmive li'u e
> lu ji'ermorsi li'u e

A zombie is a specific kind of un-dead. In the Voodoo myth, a zombie would not only be called back from the death but also be controlled by the the one performing the ritual

This last characteristic is reflected in the usage of "zombie" to designate computers that have been compromised and can be controlled from outstide.

My proposal is to import the word as a fu'ivla as it is a very specific word, used more or less in all languages:

{dzombii} -> x1 is a zombie summoned/controlled by x2

remod

[.arpis.]

Not all uses of "zombie" (in English) involve a controller; e.g. Left 4 Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Shawn of the Dead, etc.

I'd just keep the x1 place and fill in a controller with BAI when applicable.

On the other hand, this privileges the Western corruption of the zombie myth over its origin; perhaps the short form could be the colloquial "x1 is a zombie (whatever that means)" and the stage-3 fu'ivla could be more precise.

Also, I'd just like to note that I have difficulty pronouncing the terminal {ii} to be distinct from {i}.

--
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.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[vitci'i]

On 08/17/2012 05:01 AM, Visirus wrote:
> Was discussing this in irc and we couldn't come up with a consensus since the word "zombie" seems to mean several different things.
>
> Any suggestions on how to resolve this in order to translate "zombie"?

Why not just use different words for the different senses?

[Jonathan Jones]

Or just have a Lrft4Dead zombie be {dzombii zi'o}?

--
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.

--
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 )

[rden...@gmail.com]

On , ".arpis." <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not all uses of "zombie" (in English) involve a controller; e.g. Left 4 Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Shawn of the Dead, etc.

Yes, I've seen all those "BRAAAAIIINS" and green skin around but I would favour the original Voodoo myth :)

> Also, I'd just like to note that I have difficulty pronouncing the terminal {ii} to be distinct from {i}.

We have a similar problem in Italian with "principii" (principles) and "principi" (princes). With some exercise they come out very distinct.

[Jonathan Jones]

It shouldn't be difficult at in Lojban. {ii} is a diphthong pronounced "YEE", {i} is a vowel pronounced "EE".

--

[And Rosta]

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, <rden...@gmail.com <mailto:rden...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> We have a similar problem in Italian with "principii" (principles) and "principi" (princes). With some exercise they come out very distinct.

Those two differ in stress too, tho, don't they.

Jonathan Jones, On 17/08/2012 21:19:

> It shouldn't be difficult at in Lojban. {ii} is a diphthong
> pronounced "YEE", {i} is a vowel pronounced "EE".

...and that's easy only for native anglophones, helped by the diphthongal character of "EE" in most accents.

--And.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Visirus <vis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was discussing this in irc and we couldn't come up with a consensus since the word "zombie" seems to mean several different things.
>
> Any suggestions on how to resolve this in order to translate "zombie"?

Check out:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/experimental+gismu

My (not widely shared) opinion is that any word "sufficiently
international" and that comes ready-made in gismu form is a valid
honorary gismu. So I don't mind using words like manga, pitsa, taksi,
tango, ... and zombi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[v4hn]

Exactly what I thought when I read this mail.
Why would you want one word in Lojban for something as ambiguous as the word "zombie"...

There are at least two more meanings of zombie: In 28 days later the hosts don't even
need to be dead before they become zombies. Also there are philosophical zombies(see wikipedia).


v4hn

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 17 August 2012 19:44:28 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> My (not widely shared) opinion is that any word "sufficiently
> international" and that comes ready-made in gismu form is a valid
> honorary gismu. So I don't mind using words like manga, pitsa, taksi,
> tango, ... and zombi.

"manga" conflicts with "mango", which I think is sufficiently international
(it has very similar form in five of the six source languages).

Pierre

--
sei do'anai mi'a djuno puze'e noroi nalselganse srera

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2012 19:44:28 Jorge Llambías wrote:
>> My (not widely shared) opinion is that any word "sufficiently
>> international" and that comes ready-made in gismu form is a valid
>> honorary gismu. So I don't mind using words like manga, pitsa, taksi,
>> tango, ... and zombi.
>
> "manga" conflicts with "mango", which I think is sufficiently international
> (it has very similar form in five of the six source languages).

If we can live with broda/brode/brodi/brodo/brodu, I think we can put
up with manga and mango as well, especially since they are unlikely to
be used in the same context.

[Jonathan Jones]

I highly doubt that. The consonant-y sound appears in a whole variety of languages.While Japanese doesn't have "yi", it does have や"ya", ゆ"yu", and よ"yo", which are distinctive sounds from あ"a", う"u", and お"o".

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 17 August 2012 20:26:29 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> If we can live with broda/brode/brodi/brodo/brodu, I think we can put
> up with manga and mango as well, especially since they are unlikely to
> be used in the same context.

"broda" etc. are assignable predicates; it doesn't make much sense to make
lujvo from them, though the first two have rafsi, so you can
say "rodbo'e". "manga" and "mango" are content words; one may want to
say "mangyska" and expect the listener to know whether he means "color of a
fruit" or "color of a comic" without resorting to context.

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[And Rosta]

Jonathan Jones, On 18/08/2012 01:28:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:31 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Jonathan Jones, On 17/08/2012 21:19:
>
> It shouldn't be difficult at in Lojban. {ii} is a diphthong
> pronounced "YEE", {i} is a vowel pronounced "EE".
>
>
> ...and that's easy only for native anglophones, helped by the diphthongal character of "EE" in most accents.
>
>
> I highly doubt that. The consonant-y sound appears in a whole variety of languages.While Japanese doesn't have "yi", it does have や"ya", ゆ"yu", and よ"yo", which are distinctive sounds from あ"a", う"u", and お"o".

You transmute healthy skepticism into pigheadedness. Why the gap at "yi"? What is the phonetic difference between {i} and {ii} and why do you suppose it to be easy?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
>
> "broda" etc. are assignable predicates; it doesn't make much sense to make
> lujvo from them, though the first two have rafsi, so you can
> say "rodbo'e". "manga" and "mango" are content words; one may want to
> say "mangyska" and expect the listener to know whether he means "color of a
> fruit" or "color of a comic" without resorting to context.

OK, I would probably keep mango over manga then Other words that fit
would be kobra, panda, zebra...

[iesk]

Given that Lojban is 'complete' (baselined) and Lojban phonotactics don't forbid {ii} in that position, I guess this exchangue of opinions is about the phonaesthetics of a word like {dzombii}, right? Otherwise I can’t see why the relative difficulties speakers of various linguistic backgrounds might have pronouncing it could be relevant.

After all, Lojban just isn’t very easy to pronounce. (On the contrary, I find it surprisingly difficult.)

iesk

[Jonathan Jones]

I don't know, I'm not the Japanese people that made the hiragana and katakana writing systems, nor am I that people who came up with the words for thing in Japan. All I know is that they /used/ to have all five vowels for each of their consonants, but at some point, "yi", "ye", "wi", "wu", and "we" ceased to exist.

The same as the difference between "a" あ and "ia" や, and for the same reason.

[Mike S.]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, <rden...@gmail.com> wrote:

On , ".arpis." <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not all uses of "zombie" (in English) involve a controller; e.g. Left 4 Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Shawn of the Dead, etc.

Yes, I've seen all those "BRAAAAIIINS" and green skin around but I would favour the original Voodoo myth :)

> Also, I'd just like to note that I have difficulty pronouncing the terminal {ii} to be distinct from {i}.

We have a similar problem in Italian with "principii" (principles) and "principi" (princes). With some exercise they come out very distinct.

It shouldn't be difficult at in Lojban. {ii} is a diphthong pronounced "YEE", {i} is a vowel pronounced "EE".

What would be your take on fu'ivla containing {dii}?

[Jonathan Jones]

The same as my take on all fu'ivla: I don't like it.

You'll have to be more specific if you want a better answer.

[Mike S.]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mike S. <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, <rden...@gmail.com> wrote:

On , ".arpis." <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not all uses of "zombie" (in English) involve a controller; e.g. Left 4 Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Shawn of the Dead, etc.

Yes, I've seen all those "BRAAAAIIINS" and green skin around but I would favour the original Voodoo myth :)

> Also, I'd just like to note that I have difficulty pronouncing the terminal {ii} to be distinct from {i}.

We have a similar problem in Italian with "principii" (principles) and "principi" (princes). With some exercise they come out very distinct.

It shouldn't be difficult at in Lojban. {ii} is a diphthong pronounced "YEE", {i} is a vowel pronounced "EE".

What would be your take on fu'ivla containing {dii}?

The same as my take on all fu'ivla: I don't like it.

You'll have to be more specific if you want a better answer.

Do you notice any difficulties with {dii}?


 

[Jonathan Jones]

No. Should I?

[Mike S.]

Allowing {ii} after coronal sounds like {d} causes many fine minimal contrasts - {di dzi dji zi ji} seems plenty; those with {dii dzii djii zii jii} seems excessive. 

For some people, plain semivowel {i} will be mixed up with some sort of fricative or affricate even before OPEN vowels.   When you place it near {i}, you are almost insisting that they (af)fricatize it.

[Jonathan Jones]

I have no idea what you just said.

[Mike S.]

What I am trying to say is that, if all those combinations become common, people from around the world are going to mispronounce them and confuse them with one another.  I am implying that disallowing {ii} helps Lojban reach its goal that the sounds and the letters correspond with each other "one-to-one".

[Jonathan Jones]

I'm not talking about what should and should not be allowed. All I'm saying is that in Lojban, {ii}, is pronounced "yee", and {i} is pronounced "ee".

[MorphemeAddict]

I like this idea. 

stevo 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Mike S.]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not talking about what should and should not be allowed. All I'm saying is that in Lojban, {ii}, is pronounced "yee", and {i} is pronounced "ee".

But no one disputes those pronunciations.  What's being discussed is whether it is a *good idea* to use it in fu'ivla like suggested {dzombii}.  It was already pointed out that {ii} is difficult for many globally.   In fact, {ii} is very marginal even in Lojban.  TTBOMK it was totally kept out of native vocabulary except for the interjection {.ii}, which I think was wise.  It'd probably be best to generally keep it and {uu} out of fu'ivla too.

[Jonathan Jones]

The reason I brought it up is because someone was comparing {i} and {ii} to the single and double "i" in "principii" vs. "principi", which to my knowledge is a false comparison, because the difference between "i" and "ii" in THAT examples is not pronunciation, but vowel length ("ee" vs. "eeee").

[Pierre Abbat]

On Saturday 18 August 2012 22:27:14 Mike S. wrote:
> But no one disputes those pronunciations. What's being discussed is
> whether it is a *good idea* to use it in fu'ivla like suggested {dzombii}.
> It was already pointed out that {ii} is difficult for many globally. In
> fact, {ii} is very marginal even in Lojban. TTBOMK it was totally kept out
> of native vocabulary except for the interjection {.ii}, which I think was
> wise. It'd probably be best to generally keep it and {uu} out of fu'ivla
> too.

I think that "ii" and "uu" in fu'ivla should be discouraged, but I wouldn't
forbid them. If the ve fu'ivla contains "ii", I'd keep the "ii",
e.g. "iinzila" (neck rings worn by Ndebele). For "zombie" I prefer "dzombie"
to "dzombii".

Pierre

--
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

[Mike S.]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Mike S. <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not talking about what should and should not be allowed. All I'm saying is that in Lojban, {ii}, is pronounced "yee", and {i} is pronounced "ee".

But no one disputes those pronunciations.  What's being discussed is whether it is a *good idea* to use it in fu'ivla like suggested {dzombii}.  It was already pointed out that {ii} is difficult for many globally.   In fact, {ii} is very marginal even in Lojban.  TTBOMK it was totally kept out of native vocabulary except for the interjection {.ii}, which I think was wise.  It'd probably be best to generally keep it and {uu} out of fu'ivla too.

The reason I brought it up is because someone was comparing {i} and {ii} to the single and double "i" in "principii" vs. "principi", which to my knowledge is a false comparison, because the difference between "i" and "ii" in THAT examples is not pronunciation, but vowel length ("ee" vs. "eeee").

Are you sure?  I didn't think that Standard Italian distinguished vowel lengths.  I looked up "principii" and it can only be the plural of "principio".  The singular "principio" is pronounced with Lojban-like {io} i.e. IPA [jo].  It is conceivable that *some* Italians say [ji] for {ii} through analogy.  That's just a guess, admittedly.

[Mike S.]

IMVHO "ii" and "uu" are so relatively rare and difficult cross-linguistically it's not worth allowing them in fu'ivla to create difficulties.  I would suggest that a good compromise would be to accept them in cmene.  Syllables {ji ie vu uo} are all available for fu'ivla.

[Remo Dentato]

[And Rosta]

iesk, On 18/08/2012 14:44:

> Given that Lojban is 'complete' (baselined) and Lojban phonotactics don't forbid {ii} in that position, I guess this exchangue of opinions is about the phonaesthetics of a word like {dzombii}, right? Otherwise I can’t see why the relative difficulties speakers of various linguistic backgrounds might have pronouncing it could be relevant.
>
> After all, Lojban just isn’t very easy to pronounce. (On the contrary, I find it surprisingly difficult.)

Why is the relative ease or difficulty of distinguishing {ii} and {uu} from {i} and {u} not relevant?

--And.

>
> iesk
>
> Le samedi 18 août 2012 12:36:33 UTC+2, And Rosta a écrit :
>
> Jonathan Jones, On 18/08/2012 01:28:
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:31 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Jonathan Jones, On 17/08/2012 21:19:
> >
> > It shouldn't be difficult at in Lojban. {ii} is a diphthong
> > pronounced "YEE", {i} is a vowel pronounced "EE".
> >
> >
> > ...and that's easy only for native anglophones, helped by the diphthongal character of "EE" in most accents.
> >
> >
> > I highly doubt that. The consonant-y sound appears in a whole variety of languages.While Japanese doesn't have "yi", it does have や"ya", ゆ"yu", and よ"yo", which are distinctive sounds from あ"a", う"u", and お"o".
>
> You transmute healthy skepticism into pigheadedness. Why the gap at "yi"? What is the phonetic difference between {i} and {ii} and why do you suppose it to be easy?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/CWKDnBx6TZkJ.

[And Rosta]

Jonathan Jones, On 19/08/2012 02:07:

> I'm not talking about what should and should not be allowed. All I'm
> saying is that in Lojban, {ii}, is pronounced "yee", and {i} is
> pronounced "ee".

It depends how you pronounce "yee" and "ee", doesn't it. If you happen to pronounce them differently and in the way {ii} and {i} are supposed to be pronounced in Lojban, then yes. Otherwise, then no.

--And.

[Jonathan Jones]

I don't know the IPA. Sue me.