From - Tue Apr 08 13:26:38 1997 Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Date: Tue Apr 08 13:26:38 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3388 Message-ID: la xorxes. spuda mi di'e > > + syllogism = le cmulojmo'a > > Hmmm... Could you explain a bit how you get > to that? Remember, I did say I wasn't satisfied with it. For what it's worth, my explanation: (basis type-of logic) type-of pattern. > This is how I would do it using those > components: "Using those components" may be a suboptimal solution. I haven't thought of better components, but perhaps someone else will. > lojycmu [logji jicmu]: j1 (j2=l1) l2 > x1 is a fundamental/basic principle > of logic reflected in the reasoning > of (text) x2. You're thinking of a syllogism as a text. I'm thinking of a syllogism as a type of pattern in logic. > It is important when you create a lujvo to > account for all the places of the component > gismu, not just for their x1 places. When I did that for {gimterzbavla}, la lojbab. seemingly implied the opposite. > > + immortal = cu vi'orji'e > > I prefer ji'ervi'o: > > ji'ervi'o [jmive vitno]: v1=j1 [v2=ka jmive] > x1 is immortal/permanently alive. > > I hadn't noticed the -bi'o/-vi'o contrast > before. Really neat! As a Spanish speaker, I > will have to be careful to make the b/v > distinction. > > You can defend vi'orji'e, I suppose, but I find > ji'ervi'o more harmonious. (Permanent type-of alive) versus (alive type-of permanence). Hmm. What kind of harmony are you talking about? > > + philosophy = lezu'o pijysisku > > I think philosophy has to be a saske. No way. Absolutely not. Over my dead body! %^> > I don't know whether kamprije (wisdom) is the > best word to form that lujvo, but I can't think > of anything less bad at the moment. According to what I learned in school, the original Greek word was a compound meaning "love of wisdom". > > + hypothesis = le skecipsmadi > > Maybe just {selru'a}. In any case, a skecipsmadi > would be a hypothesizer, not a hypothesis. Yes, you're right; it should be {skecipselsmadi}. As for {selru'a}, this creates a subtle problem in the ethics of translation. Look again at the passage I hope to learn from translating: > The real question has been: How seriously > are we to take the proposition that men and > Socrates are mortal? For there exists a > well-known counter-proposition to the effect > that men and Socrates are _im_mortal; or at > least that what we call their personalities > or souls are immortal. In fact, Socrates > himself, if the _Dialogues_ of Plato are to > be trusted, was one of the first to advance > the hypothesis of the soul's immortality. "advance the hypothesis": Lamont is using the jargon of post-Baconian science, quite anachronistically, to describe Socrates' statements on immortality. Seems to me that we cannot translate Lamont faithfully unless we do the same. {selru'a} or some other word might be more faithful to Socrates. But, in translating this passage, we have to be faithful to Lamont, & that means using a word which connotes the scientific method. To improve upon Lamont's original (whether by eliminating this anachronism or in other ways) would IMO be unethical. Wouldn't it? > Hope this helps, Yes, thanks for chiming in. Your comments were helpful in any number of ways. Well, any positive number! > co'o mi'e xorxes co'omi'e markl.