From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:49:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 23764 invoked from network); 5 Apr 1997 01:34:30 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 5 Apr 1997 01:34:30 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.BBD6E946@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 3:34:30 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:29:37 -0300 Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" Sender: Lojban list From: "Jorge J. Llambias" Subject: Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3317 Lines: 119 Message-ID: la markl di'e cusku > + syllogism = le cmulojmo'a Hmmm... Could you explain a bit how you get to that? This is how I would do it using those components: lojycmu [logji jicmu]: j1 (j2=l1) l2 x1 is a fundamental/basic principle of logic reflected in the reasoning of (text) x2. That would already give a word for syllogism: {se lojycmu} or {selkemlojycmu}. If you still want to use morna: lojycmumo'a [lojycmu morna]: m1=lc2 m2 (m3=lc1) x1 is a syllogism with components x2. It is important when you create a lujvo to account for all the places of the component gismu, not just for their x1 places. If your lujvo is based on morna then you will have places corresponding to the x2 and x3 of morna, or you have to explain how those places disappear, i.e. what they are filled with. In my proposal the x2 remains and the x3 is filled with the x1 of lojycmu. > + mortal = cu mrobi'o Yes: mrobi'o [morsi binxo]: b1=m1 [b2=ka morsi] x1 dies. Perhaps you don't even need binxo, since morsi already contains the idea that something must have been alive before being dead, and you are not referring to the actual change of state in any case. > + 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. > + philosophy = lezu'o pijysisku I think philosophy has to be a saske. I suppose you can view all sciences as seekings, and I don't see a problem with describing it as such, but for the standard word I would use saske. Perhaps: kampijyske [kamprije saske]: s1 (s2=kp1) x1 is [a] philosophy. I don't add the x3 of saske because I don't think it should be there in the first place. If you do agree that it should be there, then it should appear in kampijyske as well. I don't know whether kamprije (wisdom) is the best word to form that lujvo, but I can't thing of anything less bad at the moment. Any suggestions from the philosophers? > + personality = le prekai prekai [prenu ckaji]: c1=p1 [c2=ka prenu] x1 has personality/is a person. kampre [ka prenu]: x1 is personality/the property of being a person. > + soul = le ruxyse'i Yes: ruxyse'i [pruxi sevzi]: s1=p1 s2 x1 is the/a soul of x2. > + hypothesis = le skecipsmadi Maybe just {selru'a}. In any case, a skecipsmadi would be a hypothesizer, not a hypothesis. > + > + All men are mortal > + = .i ro le remna cu mrobi'o Better: ro remna cu mrobi'o Or what is the same: {ro lo remna}. {ro le remna} means all the men (all of those that you are talking about), not necessarily all men in the absolute. > + Socrates is a man. > + = .i la SOkrates. cu remna > + Therefore Socrates is mortal. > + = .i la SOkrates. seni'i cu mrobi'o I would say: i seni'ibo la SOkrates cu mrobi'o which says that the previous sentences logically entail the current one. The way you have it isn't wrong, but it is less clear what is it that the sentence logically follows from. Hope this helps, co'o mi'e xorxes