[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: tanru/lujvo for [name] type of thing?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:07:53PM +0100, Jan Pilgenroeder wrote:
> Am Montag, 10.02.03 um 19:37 Uhr schrieb Robin Lee Powell:
> >zo rodzga cu bridi le si'o da .e de vu'o poi tcini zo'u karbi da de
> >gi'e tcitygau fi pa da ce de kei le zgana se zukte ku ce'o le tcita
> >tcini ku ce'o le na tcica tcini ku ce'o le zgana ciste
> Wow, thanks Robin. Your definition is even pretty close to what I had
> in expressed in english ;-)
It was supposed to be exactly like what you expressed in English. 8)
> But when I saw the lojban translation I figured it was way off what it
> should have been like 8P.
> After spending half a day on thinking about this definition (damn, I
> should rather work on my thesis lol), I came up with:
> lu luman zei nunzga li'u cu bridi
> le si'o gasnu le logji telsei be da bei de be'o
I would use "le si'o gasnu le logji nu telsei da de", because othwise
you're doing seperators.
> gi'e snigau fi da kei
> le zgana se zukte ku
> ce'o le sniselgau be fi da ku
The sign with meaning da?
> ce'o le nu'o sniselgau be fi de ku
> ce'o le zgana poi ciste fi lo luman zei nunzga
The observer which is a system among components the luman observations?
> >I've seen essentially no attempts to define lojban words in lojban,
> >though, so take anything anyone says about this with a grain of salt.
> Defining and redefining words really is half of the work in building
> and explaining theories. If you do the definitions in natural
> languages, you really don't make use of the strengths of lojban. So it
> seems kind of strange to me that this is not done more often.
Not a lot of people have used lojban to define and explain theories yes.
> With this definition I can then say e.g. (if I have not screwed up):
> .i brode cei luman zei nunzga
> .i zo censa selbo'e fi le skeci'e na.e le lijdyci'e po'e
"holy" is observationally marked to the science-system <-NOT and the
> (holy vs. (unholy or secular or whatever) is a difference that science
> is blind to and religion alone can make)
My translation assumes that you meant fo; as it is it would be
"holy" is observationally marked, unmarked is the science-system <-NOT
and the religious system.
> .i la saske cu velbo'e zo jetnu po'o enai zo melbi
Since is an observational system which marks truth only and not beauty.
> (science is a system that marks things as being "true" and not as
In both cases, you don't want zo, you want le ka.
> .i la brode ganlo ciste goi ko'a cu velbo'e da poi ko'a ka'e velbo'e
> ke'a ku'o de poi ko'a na ka'e velbo'e ke'a .ijanai ko'a velbo'e lu'e
That named something-closed-system is an observational system marking
things such that it is able to mark them, and not marking things which
it is not able to mark them, ONLY IF it is an observatinonal system
which marks a symbol for itself.
> (The operationally closed system observes the difference of
> observations it can make vs. those it can not make. If it can't do
> that It can't refer to itself)
I don't think janai is what you wanted, but then I'm bat with only-if.
I'm fairly certain you didn't want lu'e. I'm also fairly certain you
don't want le.
> I got all the Luhmannian systemness in there, even though I have not
> bothered to define social systems yet.
Cool. Seemed to work fairly well.
> I can even define "Society" the Luhmann way (even without having
> "Communication" formally defined yet):
> .i la jikce'u cu velbo'e ro sinxa poi ca'a selsku
That named social-community is an observational system which marks all
signs which actually are expressed.
> .i le jikske to la'o gy sociology gy toi zo'u la jikce'u cu velbo'e
> lu'e ri
Sociology: That named community is an observational system marking the
symbol for it.
Again, I'm fairly certain you don't want la.
> The usual view on society is:
> .i la jikce'u cu gunma le prenu .ije le jikske .io prenu cu zgana le
> bebna .uu prenu
That named community is a group of people and Sociology! people observe
the foolish people.
> But that's not the only occasions where the abstraction of Luhmanns
> theory pays off. And it all seems really beautifull and simple and
> self-evident (and almost cheap) in Lojban. And I really would not want
> to re-build half of this theory in natural language if I can possibly
> do it in Lojban.
Heh. Sounds cool to me.
> I have been reading hundreds of pages about Theory of Social Systems
> and have written a few papers on it myself. It really is a pain to do
> it in German. It's just too easy to slip from the abstract
> system-frame to the old people-frame. And it's way to easy to slip
> from "le'u le" to "la" to "le" to "lo" without even noticing --
> because the natural language (and especially the worst type of natural
> language speakers) treats everything more or less like "lo" unless you
> are really carefull.
> I think once I got my thesis and my final exams finished (and got
> myself a job lol) I will definitely want to spend some more thoughts
> on translating Lumann into Lojban.
Please, feel free!
> I am really surprised and pleased how much I already achieved with one
> basic bridi. I think I might even get a paper published. Social
> Systems Theorists are a pretty open-minded bunch and they are pretty
> influential in German sociology.
That would be amazing!
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
.i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu
.i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai
http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi