From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:48:02 2010 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed May 28 09:59:19 1997 From: Logical Language Group Subject: delayed response - "philosophy" To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 10236 X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 28 09:59:19 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: Stephen Belknap wrote: I submit that you won't find >any more satisfactory than the fu'ivla. Actually, philosophy seems to >me to be a good example of why fu'ivla are important. Actually, I think that philsophy is an excellent example of a word that should NOT be a fu'ivla, for the very reasons that Stephen gave in his post. To make it clear why, I ask this: which language are you borrowing the word from? If you borrow the word from the original Greek, then you are implying a constraint to the original Greek concept of philosophy and NOT to the hodgepodge of derived American meanings. Not doubt, of you borrowed it from French, you would get a bunch of different implied meanings. By what logic would one assume that the American English definition(s) apply? Certainly not because of the enormous contribution of Americans to the field. The words that should be fu'ivla are those words that have a SINGLE definition in some source language, but where that single definition, if encoded into Lojban (especially if one tries to play the lujvo place analysis game) would be so unwieldy in length that even a rare frequency of usage demands a shorter word. A secondary principle supporting this is that all Lojban words, even fu'ivla, are supposed to have a single definition at least at the place structure level. If you can come up with a place structure that covers all the definitions that Stephen cites, then probably you can come up with a generalized lujvo. I believe that EACH of the definitions given in an English dictionary for most any word shouuld be translated into its own lujvo (or fu'ivla if appropriate), unless you can come up with a generic term that encompasses multiple definitions cleanly. Ultimately, Lojban SHOULD have more words than English does; it is designed with that "goal" (or at least "expectation") in mind, and the ideal of singular definitions for each word, whether such is sustainable, requires it. Now if you are translating the word "philsophy" from an English text, you have some difficulty - you have to decide which of the dictionary definitions (or possibly some other definition that isn't in the dictionary) is the one intended by the original author being translated. Choosing that definition, and thus the correct word, is indeed an art. This difficulty is why translation, especially of "deep" texts with lots of such polysemantic words, is something that beginning Lojbanists (or translators into any language) find is NOT a very good tool for learning Lojban. Instead of learning Lojban, you get into arguments as to what the English words mean (as has happened in the list the last few days, with "philosophy", "syllogism", and "suicide" and perhaps other words as well). Which is fine, if that is your intent. My answer to Stephen's question: >If you firmly believe that the concept "philosophy" can be translated >into lojban lujvo, which do you prefer? is thus "Which concept (singular)?" If Stephen cannot say what single concept he has in mind, then the word probably HAS no single translation into Lojban, either as fu'ivla or lujvo. Scott Lewis replied to Stephen with: >I heartily agree. Reading this discussion reminds me of the old story >about the blind men describing an elephant. Just as the blind men can't >describe the totality of the elephant by descibing one part they can >touch, a single lujvo would be woefully inadequate for naming something >as complex and multi-dimensional as Philosophy. In my opinion, each of the blind men should coin their own lujvo, and not make the assumption that the elephant is necessarily a singular thing. If they eventually agree that they ARE describing the same thing, then they will perforce be able to agree on a singular definition. It is only to the omniscient external observer that sees the "big picture" clearly that the blind men seem like fools groping in the dark. In the case of philsophy, and other such nebulous words, I daresay that the American dictionary constitutes no such omniscience as to what the various people who use the term "philosophy" are really describing. It merely says that the word is being used as a shorthand by many different blind men to describe their own animals, and makes NO claim that all of these animals are really the same elephant. Scott continues: >On the other hand, an >effective way to employ lujvo might be to discuss particular aspects of >a broader topic. This could be very handy for getting rid of ambiguity. And this is what should be done. Forget trying to come up with an all-encompassing lujvo or fu'ivla, until you can find the omniscience that can see the big picture clearly. Then that person will probably have to coin a new word, based on NO language, because it will turn out that no language comes close to the "true" understanding of philosophy. Stephen later responds to Lee with: >>Philosophy often sounds like nonsense--and often is--because that's >>its very purpose; to explore the limits of every idea from every >>point of view and see where they break. What's left standing gets >>spun off into a useful science. The broken remains are left for >>studying in philosophy class, as well as the methods by which we >>broke them, and by which to expand further. Something like a post >>mortem examination; we're studying failures, but learning how to >>do better. > >I essentially agree with this. Based on this, I think your concept is something like. sidbylanli or sidbylanlyciste, though you might need a mulno or traji in there somewhere. Such a lujvo actually conveys MUCH more information than does a fu'ivla for such a hodgepodge English word. Using the fu'ivla BEGS THE QUESTION as to what the heck you mean by the word. Using a lujvo that is confined to the commonalty that you apparently share regarding the meaning you INTEND to signify conveys that shared concept to a third party. I think Stephen eventually came to the same conclusion based on: >This approach makes a lot more sense. > >The English *word* "philosophy" is so overloaded with meanings that a >fu'ivla is best for translation of the word. > >The various *concepts* which "philosophy" includes can reasonably be >translated into individual lujvo. (There are also specific English >synonyms for many of these concepts.) At which point I say, "why bother making the fu'ivla?". What it sounds like Stephen is saying is this: the English word in English text is untranslatable because we don't know to which specific submeaning a given use of "philosophy" in English refers. But if you are that constrained in your discussion, why are you bothering to translate at all? Just use the English word in la'o delimited quotes (which we call type I fu'ivla), and save more lojbanized fu'ivla forms for those words where one could in theory pin things down to a specific place structure. Now going back to Mark's original quote, which is where the question perhaps started: > The branch of philosophy > known as logic has made much of this syllogism > as an example of perfect reasoning; what is > more significant is the prodigious amount of > time and energy which philosophy as a whole > has spent on inquiring into its true and > complete meaning. One gathers that several of the English definitions are ruled out by these two usages (even assuming that one wants to translate both instances of "philosophy" with the same Lojban word, which should not necessarily be a given. We observe that philosophy has "branches" which include logic. This implies the "system" definition and thus sidbylanlyciste We observe that philosophy "as a whole" expends time and energy. I am not sure that "systems" do so, This definition is more likely referring to the mass (loi) of philosophical activity (sidbylanli). This is consistent with the additional info that this philsophy expends these things on "inquiring into its true and complete meaning". The only possible change I might make, based on the latter, would be to sidbysmunylanli. Now if the translator (Mark) feels it more important to have the two words bear more commonalty of form because the writer was talking about one single view of philosophy in English and this fact becomes confused in using two different words, then I would either put "ciste" on the end of whatever I came up the second word AS A TANRU (e.g. sidbysmunylanli ciste), or I would use an abstraction for the second word based on the first translation (loi zu'o sidbylanlyciste), which works because activities DO imply the expenditure of time, and perhaps of energy as well. But Mark goes on to say: >The meaning of the word "philosophy" certainly does vary from culture to >culture, from person to person, from adolescence to adulthood & so >forth. Is that a good reason to translate the word by using a fu'ivla >rather than a lujvo? If so, then the current jvoste is full of lujvo >that ought to be replaced by fu'ivla. Such words as {zgikalsa}, >{grusko}, {saurgu'e}, {ruxycrida}, {farja'o} & {bacycu'e} all vary in >meaning from culture to culture. They do not. They have a single meaning in the embryonic LOJBANIC culture which may or may not have reflection in other cultures. Lojban words have no meaning in another culture since they are not part of any other culture. Now it is likely that many of these words were coined by Lojbanists trying to translate some word from another language. But just because "ruxycrida" was used to translate X from some language, does not mean that "ruxycrida" means X and only X in all its source language glory. No doubt, there could be some referents that a Lojbanist would describe as "ruxycrida" which the source language would not use X for, or some usages of X for which "ruxycrida" would not apply. The only thing that matters is the right word for THIS translation. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/"