From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sat Feb 20 10:33:52 1999 X-Digest-Num: 67 Message-ID: <44114.67.324.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:33:52 +0200 From: Robin Turner Before all, I'd say that, it isn't intellegible to translate something > like Daodejing into Lojban... First, there is one more ancient version > found in Mawangdui, and experts are trying to understand it. And then, > since there is no punctuations in ancient Chinese, the _true_ meaning > is impossible to be understood. Third, since Lojban derives from _logic_, > which is a result of social working of ancient Greeks, it is > _incompatible_ with the system of Daodejing. You just cannot understand > many ancient Chinese things by logic; that'll be illogic. Well, no one's been put off translating the Dao De Jing into just about every other language, so why should Lojbanists be so humble?! Also, as recent postings indicate, ther'es nothing to stop Lojban incorporating different logics, not just the "Greek" style. If Lojban were simply an attempt to put language into an Aristotelean straightjacket, I for one would never bother to learn it. In fact, I think the ability to be purposefully vague and avoid logical implication when you want to makes Lojban an ideal language for translating the Chinese classics. All it needs is someone with a good knowledge of Classical Chinese, some background knowledge of Taoism {zo'o} and maybe a stack of those Han dynasty commentaries!. Go for it, Lin! co'o mi'e robin. > > > Sat, 20 Feb 1999, zo Robin Turner(robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR) cusku di'e > > {.u'i} If you're translating the first line of the Dao De Jing, I'm not sure {fatci} is > > the best translation of "chang" which is usually rendered as "eternal" (though that > > doesn't really give the idea either!). I would hazard: > > _Chang_, means frequent, eternal, not modifiable, definite, etc. > It is very hard to translate it into occidental languages. Tradutore > tracidore. > > > If I understand "dao ke dao fei chang dao" correctly (and who can say that they do?) it is > > It can mean: > 1) The Dao which is able to be discussed is not the very Dao. > 2) The Dao which is able to be discussed is not the eternity. > (the law of nature, in other words.) > 3) The Dao is able to be discussed, but it is not the regularity of the > world. > > However, according to those experts, it is not suitable to translate > them into modern Chinese, as described as: > The Dao is able to be discussed, and it is an extreme Dao. > > And you're right. There isn't just no one can say that they understand it. > And this indication itself is not understandable by Logic. > > -- > > .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. ==> 請支持邏輯語言。 > co'o mi'e lindjy,min. ==> 再見，我是林哲民。 > Fingerprint20 = CE32 D237 02C0 FE31 FEA9 B858 DE8F AE2D D810 F2D9