Print

Print


On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Personally I think the concept of blasphemy only makes sense
> in terms of one's own observance,
...
> there is no point in offending others' ears/eyes if I can make my
> point clearly without doing so, and it is certainly pointless
> to offend only to show off my different beliefs.

Agreed.

Which is why here, since I think we that we cannot easily have even a
neutral discussion of certain members' gods, this is not purely an
opt-in discussion, and those particular gods are mostly irrelevant to
the real topic (i.e. theological naming systems in conlangs), I think
we should just drop reference to real-world religions.

Dana, I think this isn't giving special treatment to Christianity, but
rather recognizing it as off topic. I agree with the NCNC convention;
we should not be directly debating real-world theological beliefs, and
I'm sorry for wandering too close to that (though I am not sorry for
my complete lack of deference to other religions' proscriptions).

Benct, you've identified some good reasons why the terms we use are
too ambiguous. So put on your conlanging hat; how could we devise a
better system?


On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> BTW it derives from the ancient Greek adjective _agno:stos_ = "unknowable."

Is that unambiguously accurate? I.e. is it not conflated (as in this
discussion) with merely "unknown"?


On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:44 PM, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't know of any conlangs but Thailand has "kathoeys" ("ladyboys" in
> English) who are from what I have read are actually recognized legally as a
> third gender.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey there is zero
recognition, and indeed less than in most Western countries that at
least allow one to legally change genders to one of the standard two.

Do you have a better, contradicting source?

- Sai