From ljm@xxxx.xxx.xxxxxx.xxxx Mon Feb 22 08:15:33 1999 X-Digest-Num: 71 Message-ID: <44114.71.394.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:15:33 +0800 From: Lin Zhemin > So why just call it "zo dao." ? :-) > Because anything you say about {zo dao} would be a statement about the word > "dao", not the Dao - but then maybe that's the point you're making ;-) But can you say, e.g., {la dao.} ? {la dao.} is translated as "the one called Dao", and thus defines there _is_ one (thing), and implies that it has the characteristic of having the name, "Dao". Well, according to Laozi, "I don't know its name, so I called it Dao"; thus it hasn't the name, and that's just the way someone (Laozi) called it. So {zo dao.} would be better, IMHO, anyway. -- .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