I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
My uneducated guess, arrived at by reading it aloud until it meant something: some pidgin or creole including Spanish as a parent, meaning "woah man, look there. I could die for a taco now."
ReplyDeleteGood guess, Andy. One of the languages going into this creole is Portuguese.
DeletePortugese-Japanese, from the Japanese colonization of Brazil?
DeleteBut Andy, by translating "luku" as "look," you should have gotten one of the other main ingredients.
DeleteAnd no, no Japanese.
English?
ReplyDeleteYes, the language is Saramaccan, a creole of English, Portuguese, Fongbe, and other African languages, spoken in Surinam. The vocabulary is 50% English and 35% Portuguese.
DeleteThe quote is Eve talking to Adam, by the way.
Talk about a linguistic mind-F. If you will excuse my French.
Delete