Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 03:21:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804080721.DAA11146@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: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: d18fddacfad767747eae3cefffbeb7d6 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 08 10:02:20 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: >I guess this is going back to what Lojbab thinks the various gismu mean. >marji is supposed to mean "matter" such that "ni marji" is "mass" one of >those paradigms underlying the gismu list choices made back in ancient days. Is {ni marji} the amount of the relationship between an object, some of its components and its shape? The best translation for the property "mass" in my opinion is {le ka grake}, having mass is having "gramness". >>In any case, the whole point of the aphorism is that it's a seeming >>paradox. If we resolve the paradox it loses its whole raison d'etre, >>so a good translation has to maintain the apparent paradox. > >I guess I am dense as to what constitutes maintaining or clarifying the >paradox. Well, I already offered a couple of short translations that maintained the apparent paradox and one long translation that resolved it. Nobody else offered any full translation either way. Do you have a short and snappy translation that avoids the paradox? > If we want the ambiguitry of English, why bother using Lojban? English is as capable of disambiguation as is Lojban, isn't it? As for why bother, I suppose everybody who bothers to use it has their own reasons. I just like the language. co'o mi'e xorxes