mamta

[solpahi]

Original definition:
x1 is a mother of x2; x1 bears/mothers/acts maternally toward x2; [not necessarily biological].

---

The key here is that mamta is not necessarily biological (this is not controversial). I believe that mamta meaning both "to be a biological mother" and "to mother" is a case of (malgli) ambiguity and that mamta, if it isn't necessarily biological, has to be non-biological. mamta is a type of rirni, which also is not biological. The two senses are actually two disjointed concepts and no Lojban word should have two disjointed meanings.

A biological mother gives birth but may not ever act maternally, do any parenting or raising. Does she mamta the child? I say no.

A stranger finds an abandonned child and raises it ("maternally"), does she mamta the child? I say yes.

Another thing I've observed: People never put tenses on mamta as though mamta was a time-less relation. But parenting usually ends at some point. A grown-up who is done being parented should say lo pu mamta be mi for "she who mothered me". Similarly, a kid that gets taken away from its parents and is taken to another family would have a ba'o mamta and a ca'o mamta, because someone else is now doing the parenting, etc.

All of the above applies to patfu as well.

[uakci]

I agree. «rirni» should be for actual biological relationships, but «mamta»
and «patfu» not.

On Sep 3, 2016 10:48 AM, "solpahi" notifications@github.com wrote:

Original definition:
*x1 is a mother of x2; x1 bears/mothers/acts maternally toward x2; [not

necessarily biological].*

The key here is that mamta is not necessarily biological (this is not
controversial). I believe that mamta meaning both "to be a biological
mother" and "to mother" is a case of (malgli) ambiguity and that mamta,
if it isn't necessarily biological, has to be non-biological. mamta
is a type of rirni, which also is not biological. The two senses are
actually two disjointed concepts and no Lojban word should have two
disjointed meanings.

A biological mother gives birth but may not ever act maternally, do any
parenting or raising. Does she mamta the child? I say no.

A stranger finds an abandonned child and raises it ("maternally"), does
she mamta the child? I say yes.

Another thing I've observed: People never put tenses on mamta as though
mamta was a time-less relation. But parenting usually ends at some
point. A grown-up who is done being parented should say lo pu mamta be
mi for "she who mothered me". Similarly, a kid that gets taken away
from its parents and is taken to another family would have a ba'o mamta
and a ca'o mamta, because someone else is now doing the parenting, etc.

All of the above applies to patfu as well.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#31, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGo4dNSZ0mSeN5AcO1aQ-6auLu-uKT_Hks5qmTRqgaJpZM4J0Qjn
.

[solpahi]

uakci said:

I agree. «rirni» should be for actual biological relationships, but «mamta» and «patfu» not.

But I said rirni is not biological. mamta is a subtype of rirni (rirni + female + human).

[solpahi]

Scratch the "human" part.

[uakci]

Then, whatword describes biological parents?

[solpahi]

The only relevant words I know are se panzi and rorci.

[uakci]

Ah, OK then. I approve. [personal seal goes here]