Message-Id: <199508272013.QAA13861@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sat, 26 Aug 1995 14:01:03 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      lo la orwel selspuda be la xorxes
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Xorxe:
> >   suo bua cei prenu zou ro bua ro bua jukydunli
> >   ije kui nui suo da poi bua suo de poi bua nuu
> >   jukydunli mau nui de da nuu
> > means (or would have if I had got it right) "Everyone is
> > socially-equal to everyone, but the extent to which each
> > of some people, X, is socially-equal to each of some
> > people, Y, is less than the extent to which Y is socially-equal
> > to X". [It actually says "spidery-equal", but that's a typo.]
> > > i di'u mi mutce cfipu  i pe'i na gendra
> > eo ko gendragau i mi djica loeduu mi pilno lae zoi za termsets za
> > pio la kolin
> First, I don't see why you want to use a quantifiable predicate.

Style. I didn't want to use "prenu" four times, and the mabla logji
style suits the sophistry of the original.

> The prenex says something like "for at least one predicate p,
> which is 'prenu'" or something like that. I am not certain that
> {cei} should be used there. Its normal use is like {goi} to
> be used with {broda}.

Aha. That I didn't know. I believe from John Cojban that the cei
is okay in the prenex, but "ro prenu cei broda cu jikdunli ro broda"
would have been better.

>        ro prenu ro prenu cu jikydunli
>        i ku'i su'o prenu su'o prenu cu jikydunl[i]
>        mau le nu vo'e vo'a no'a

Yes, that's cool. Here's my revised version:

        ro prenu cei broda ro broda cu jikdunli
        i kui suo broda suo broda cu jikdunli mau ro nu voe voa noa

> > >        piro loi prenu cu jikydunsi'u
> > >        i ku'i pisu'o ri zmadu loi drata le ka go'i
> > Which means "The whole of persondom is mutually socially-equal,
> > but some of it is more mutually socially-equal than something
> > else is".
> I think that is more likely for "some are more equal than others"
> than your version.

Ah yes, but is it what Orwell would have used if he'd been writing
Lojban?

> You understand it as meaning "for some X and some Y: X is equal
> to Y more than Y is equal to X".
> But the English version does not use "equal" as a two place
> predicate. It uses it as a one place predicate, and says that
> everyone satisfies it, but some do so more than others.

I realize now that I may always have misunderstood the Orwell quote.
I've always understood it as paradoxical (as reflected in my rendition),
with "equal" being perverted in meaning, but on your reading it allows
for the mass of humanity to be on a fairly equal level, but for some
parts of humanity to be further away from that average level - "people
are on a par with each other to a greater or lesser extent".

The English version uses "equal" as a two-place, not a one-place
predicate. "Equality" is meaningless unless its a suore-place predicate.
The adjective has no prepositional complement (to); instead it is
used in a "reciprocal" construction which requires the subject to
refer to a set such that Ax,Ay if x and y are in the set & x is not y,
then predicate(x,y). (I am highly skeptical that the equivalent job
should be done by a predicate, simxu, in Lojban.)

And