From ljm@marx.ljm.wownet.net Sun Feb 21 17:57:46 1999 X-Digest-Num: 70 Message-ID: <44114.70.370.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:57:46 +0800 From: Lin Zhemin Subject: Re: Dao De Jing [was Re: Promoting Lojban] zo xorxes. cusku di'e > ro relselse'u bakni cu citka lo srasu > Every two-headed cow eats grass. I think this sentence is logic; since, whether the two-head cow exists or not doesn't affect its logical value. Even something like "the Dao which can be told is not the eternal Dao" is logic (and thus defined that the "Dao" isn't able to be told.) IIRC, the Brochure claimed that one can even say some irony sentences , but the sentence itself is never contraditory, as long as you treat lojban as a meta language. (Indeely I doubt this statement. Is there some examples yet?) IMHO, some old stuff like le jetnu cu na jetnu (1) is internally contradictory in the system of logic. And the old proverb ro da te poi mi do tavla zo'u ko na krici da (2) (Euh. I know there is some grammatical error...) is symentically contradictory. In both situation, how can you answer a "go'i" or "nago'i" to the speaker? You just can say something like "mi tugni la'edi'u". Well, then the question split into two, while the prejudge of Sapir-Whold theory is right: 1) Logban is internally based on predicate logic. We know that is possible to _write_ something irony in logical form, like A is not A. In formal logic, we know that the _statement_ is false; we don't think at first glance that it could be something logically false like (The statement is true that) A is not A. So we know that is possible to _write_, but hard to _describe_. 2) Can someone grew up in Logbanistan believe in / understand / write something like the examples above? The pattern of their thinking is limited by predicate logic, as ours limited by our own culture. Discussion? -- .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