I tried to learn Loglan back when the first text book and dictionary was published but have a very poor ability to learn vocabulary. I usually just end up studying the grammatical structures of languages.

American Heritage College Dictionary / Edition 3, electronic edition, 1992

Quite a few evangelical Christian fans of Ayn Rand turn up in this search::
https://www.bing.com/search?q=ayn+ran...

And here's a whole site full of self-proclaimed "Christian Objectivists": http://www.christianobjectivism.blogs...

There is a group using a later edition of the language, called Lojban.

"a living language necessarily changes over time."

Sure. But it would add words to the vocabulary - not alter existing ones as English has done.

"But this is a philosophical rather than a linguistic problem."

Philosophical because it is intellectual laziness? I tend to agree. Linguistically, we see new words pop up regularly. See "bling".

You'll have to ask Irshultis for the etymology and publication date rather than myself.

Words have meanings. But they also have connotations. The word sacrifice has very strong religious connotations and is considered noble in the eyes of church goers. This is simply a ploy to strike at people's conscience in order to get a contribution.

Such a language has been invented -- Loglan. I haven't heard of any attempts by a group to start using it.

I have studied several languages. But it doesn't
make sense to speak of a possible "perfect" lan-
guage. This is because a living language neces-
sarily changes over time.
---Still, it would be better if people use more pre-
cision within the language. But this is a philo-
sophical rather than a linguistic problem.

Again, it is all about word definition. English is a terrible language for specificity of definition (my wife is a linguistics grad). In a perfect language, there would only be one definition for any given word and zero synonyms. Instead, we would create new words for things that did not specifically conform to the precise meaning of a hitherto undefined object or idea.

Since we don't have a perfect language (again according to my wife English is probably the most bastardized language in existence), we have the tendency to try to use the existing words to mean other things - either similar to or differing greatly from existing definitions.

But even in (1) above, the true purpose behind the offering itself was that of giving up something now in anticipation of something greater at some later juncture. The word was just used to focus on the thing being given up rather than on the purpose for the action in the first place.

Xenokroy....The Obama cult does it all the time and gets praised for it, do you believe a baker in private business should be fined $130,000 for not baking a wedding cake for gays???

Here is a dictionary definition: even the second seems a little mixed up as being good.

sac·ri·fice (s²k“r…-fºs”) n. 1.a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. b. A victim offered in this way. 2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. b. Something so forfeited. 3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. b. Something so relinquished. c. A loss so sustained.

I've insisted for a long time, I don't have any issue with Cruz's politics as he has so far demonstrated, I just don't like the weird & creepy things he says & pastoral actions about him. I'm not a separation of church & state guy either, I just think he 'overdoes' it on a continuous basis. I have a hard time believing he acts like that when he's out for dinner with his wife, so why does he act like that on the campaign trail? GW Bush was liked because he was humble (and still is). If you misrepresent yourself when speaking to people - arguably you will be more honest with your feelings when frustrated (by a huge loss) - then how do we know when he misrepresents himself in other ways?

I keep telling people, his constitutionalism was when acting as the Texas solicitor general, and acting on behalf of the Texas Governor and at that person's behest & direction. Is that Ted's views or someone else's? It's always impossible to know.

XR, you're just describing value exchange! . people
slur the language so un-mercifully these days. -- j
.

I can recognize an Objectivist when I see one, and Ted Cruz is no Objectivist.

Ol' Teddy is a fan of Rand, all right... he wants to be the next Mr. Truma... er... Thompson. (Sorry, Freudian slip).

He'll say anything and do anything to get elected - sell out his principles, mooch from the people, steal others lines if they have better public approval than his own... who knows what limits he won't stoop to...

He's ready to roll up his Cuffys, and out-mooch Mouch.

She saw the contradiction that was coming in her mind if she continued reading. She evaded facing the contradiction by simply not reading the book.

Sounds like they are both realizing they have chosen the wrong life path and are starting to live life on their own terms. Sounds AS to me. Hope she pushes thru and finishes it.

My reason for supporting Trump (among the pack of electable candidates) is that he speaks his mind, is NOT politically correct, and is anti-the crooked establishment (he funds his own campaign), at least understands business, is a good negotiator, and has lots of experience hiring and managing people.

The bravado, ego, and brandishing politically incorrect statements I dismiss as a way to avoid spending $200 million like Hillary does on a $400k job.

John Galt wouldnt want the job as president, and wouldnt win in this environment, so why wait for him to run. I do think Trump will slow down the march of socialism. Not stop it, but slow it down.
Cruz couldnt convince his own senators of anything, let along advance freedom. He preaches and it turns people off. He is a religious zealot and bible thumps, which I dont think is what we need in government. We need government to be independent of all religions.

So your position about supporting Trump is that he does a good job of ad hominem and mud slinging?

Yeah, this is Disgusting Ted Cruz, the remake.
Or is this a sacrificial sequel?

As much as the media hates Trump, he does come out with some good short statements- "lyin' Ted" is one, "crooked Hillary" is certainly another. He dismissed Jeb Bush as being way too low key, and Ben Carson as just not having what it takes to be president. He is a good judge of character.

I say the apples that fell from his tree are pretty good and sensible kids, and mean that the tree itself is a good tree.