Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:37:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801282337.SAA10854@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: d65b7c2601cb5e73c4abdc50b532b640 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 29 12:38:27 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >> They obviously >>will disagree that they are self evident truths. What's the problem? > >Then they obviosuly would argue with translating the Declaration using >"fatci". Why? If they don't agree with the English version, why would they want to make a translation into a version they agree with? >If we want a CORRECT translation of teh Declaration, then using >fatci will mislead someone from a different cultural basis. They would insist >that these "truths" are only suibjectively true. What do you mean by a CORRECT translation? A translation into a statement that everyone accepts as true, or a translation into a statement that makes the same claim as the English version? The former would be a rewriting, not a translation. >Now using Lojban djuno as I have argued it, we can still use "mi djuno" >for "we hold" and do not need to use "fatci". But we also don't have to seem >relativistic by using "jinvi" because the founders who "held" those truths >did indeed presuppose them, and jinvi is too weak a claim. Of course the founders could use "mi djuno". They are presupposing those truths, as you say, so what's the problem? >Lojban is intended to be a language usable for communication between > people whodo not necessarily share the same world view (i.e. intercultural >communication) though of course there needs ot be some commonalties. If two people don't agree on what things count as blanu, then they will not agree on the truth value of {ta blanu}. Same for {fatci} or any other word. >>No matter how convinced >>the USAn is, if they tell me: "I know that it is self evident that all men >>are created equal", then I will disagree and say that to me it is not self >>evident. > >Then don't use fatci, and be wary to remember the x2 of jetnu and >the x4 of djuno. But I don't agree with the English version. So I have to translate it into a Lojban version that I disagree with. Otherwise I would be changing what it says, wouldn't I? co'o mi'e xorxes