Subject: Re: [lojban] lo Jesus

From: Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:55:22 +0300

Replying to list rather than individually, because it's a semantic more
than a theological point...

> >> Invent Yourself writes:
> >> >If a Christian really believes there is only one True God, it behooves
> >> >them to use "lo" to indicate their absolute belief. It is not a relative,
> >> questionable point of debate for them. The fact that you don't happen to
> >> >agree is irrelevant to them.

and so on and so forth.

Aren't we forgetting an important feature of {lo} which is that it
specifies neither number nor any particular instance? A Christian could
by all means use {lo cevni} to mean "God" in the Christian sense, and
rely on context to fill in that meaning. But to get that meaning, you
would need to know that the the speaker was a Christian, and was
referring to the god of his/her own religion and not somebody else's.
{lo cevni} could equally mean "some gods". As far as I can see, the
only assertion implied by use of {lo cevni} is that there is a set of
gods which contains at least one member. To make the assertion that
there is only one god AND it is the god described by followers of a
particular religion would require something a lot more complex, for
which, I think, mere articles would not suffice.

I would think that in most cases where we are talking about the god(s)
of a particular religion, {le cevni} would be more appropriate, since it
implies that the speaker has a certain god or gods in mind. It's not
necessary, but it's doing the listener a favour. We can also use other
terms to be more specific if we want, e.g. {le jegvo cevni}. I prefer
to be more cryptic, e.g. {le selpramrai}, which is a rough translation
of "Parameshvari" (I think).

co'o mi'e robin.