Reminder t= o self: easy on the irony among geeks. I pretty clearly said that Loj= ban is capable of being used for philosophy, though I did question why one = would want to. Not doing so is (again rather clearly) a matter only o= f good taste. As for Sanskrit, it is created only in the sense of bei= ng a (slight) regularizing of the language of existing texts (some of the r= ics, for example are not quite Sanskrit, having wild forms. By the Ve= danta everything is pretty much in place and thereafter Panini rules). = ; Those texts are already religious moving toward philosophical so there is= probably no way to keep it from going on in that way (even the Kamasutra r= eads like a theology manual, and also much of the epics). So, go, do = philosophy -- but figutre out how to order a pound of butter and a dozen eggs first (or last, of course -- after satori, the dishes).

<= font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">

From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
= To: lojban@googlegroups.co= m
Sent: Monday, March= 19, 2012 1:41 PM
Subject:= Re: [lojban] Re: Specific terminology - the case of philosophy termino= logy

HOW TO MAKE A MAJOR DRAWBACK APPEAR as if it was a good point !!!

&g= t; A (philosophical) argument can be made that the inability of Lojban to> translate philosophy is a positive sign that it is a truly logical l= anguage,
> well suited for the real world. But, since it is pos= sible to say nonsense
> in Lojban, I suspect that philosophy will not= be a problem (the hardship of
> vocabulary creation aside -- and may= be the necessity of figuring out what
> these guys are really saying,= if anything).

This proves too much. Are you telling us Lojban= couldn't be used to
write love letters as well ?

Anyway, you mak= e a drawback (Lojban cannot be used to translate this
kind of thing) app= ear as if it were an advantage, this is rather
funny. At le= ast the guys who designed Sanskrit did not have the
same prohibitions : = not only they somewhat-created a new "logical"
language, but they thought its primary use was to speak about
IMPORTANT things, that is, l= itterature, philosophy, poetry, science,
this kind of things.

I a= gree we should begin by translating tiny piece of texts, that are
not to= o complex, to begin with. But we should also pursue high
goals, o= therwise you will only get mediocre results.

And, also, it's a bit s= trange that a "logical" language should render
us the service of "forbid= ding" some kinds of expression. Rendering
some kinds of expressio= n impossible is NOT the work of Logic, this is
Ideology' 's work. = You are not an ideologist, I hope... In "1984",
the NEWSPEAK lan= guage is designed so as to render impossible such
notions as democracy o= r religion. Is it what you would call a
logical language, with an= inability to translate bad things ?

--
You received this messag= e because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegro= ups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit= this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.