From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:28:31 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3541 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:28:29 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 03:29:36 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa27480; 22 Jun 95 4:28 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4929; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:26:36 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4751; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:35:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 18:21:51 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Theology (was Re: Trobriand Island masses) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506220428.aa27480@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R > I suspect that if we were to examine the presumed inheritances of > properties of the 3 elements of the Trinity we might understand > Trobriand Island masses, and gain some insights into Lojban masses. I think that according to the dogma, the mystery of the Holy Trinity is inherently not understandable by mere mortals (but I'm not really a theologician). Would that mean that masses are beyond our capabilities as well? If instead of all this unending discussion in English, we would agree to write down twenty sentences *in Lojban* where the contrast between mass and individual is clearly shown, I don't think we would need to look for answers in religion. For example, the difference between {le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} and {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, which hopefully everyone understands and agrees with, makes the main difference quite clear. Talking about molecules doesn't really clarify anything to me, but if anyone thinks it helps, then a couple of sentences in Lojban showing how would be most welcome. > Hmmm. Except for the Lord's Prayer and a chunk of > Genesis, we don't have much theological text in Lojban. It would be a > worthy addition to the corpus, and then someone can tackle Aquinas (xo > {angels} ka'e dansu cpana lo pijne jipno). The angels are another good example. The lujvo list gives {notcrida} for angel, then: lei xo notcrida ka'e dansu cpana lo pijne jipno The mass of how many angels can dance on a pin's head? It wouldn't be of interest to ask {xo le notcrida}, (how many of the angels) can each dance there, probably all of them can. The question of theological interest is how many can do it together, so we have to use masses. Another way of putting the question might be {le notcrida xomei}, which is also a mass of angels. > If I see one person and I say "mi viska > lo'e prenu" and a short while later I see a different person and can say > "mi viska lo'e prenu", I am not so myopic as to think I have only seen > one person. But "mi viska re lo'e prenu" would be far more correct than > "mi viska lo'e prenu remei" because at no time were two people's images > on my retina. Even better would be {mi reroi viska lo'e prenu}. I now agree with And that {re lo'e prenu} is not very nice. Jorge