From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat May 27 11:59:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28847 invoked from network); 27 May 2000 18:59:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 May 2000 18:59:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.249) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 May 2000 18:59:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 91180 invoked by uid 0); 27 May 2000 18:59:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000527185907.91179.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.152.86 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 27 May 2000 11:59:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.152.86] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:59:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" >Nice, though I think that Chuang clearly got the best of it, albeit by pure >sophistry -- but Hui was a sophist of sorts. Chuang's argument is certainly better. If we ask a small child what do planes like to do, the answer will probably be that they like to fly. Even a child knows that the pleasure of planes is to fly, just like the pleasure of Chuang's fish is to dart about. That's what our feelings tell us! Hui might do better taking issue with Chuang's assumptions rather than with his source of knowledge. If he grants him that fish do take pleasure at anything, I don't see what is so strange to think that darting about would be it. More strange would be to think that they wouldn't be indulging their pleasure. I missed in Lojban an evidential question. I think that better than using {djuno} to translate his "how do you know?" would be to use "in what evidential mode are you talking?", but there isn't one. {ge'epei} sounds more like a therapist: "and how do you feel about that?" As for the lojbanizations of the names: I have no idea at all. I know next to nothing about Chinese. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com