Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 21:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804070118.VAA08154@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: 68358ef489320e7b962883e2518259b6 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 Status: RO Content-Length: 1193 Lines: 29 Lojbab: >On the other hand, if you are not looking for maximal aphorism, you can refer >on one as cirla joi kevna or even kevna cirla, and the other as cirla ni marji >(chesse mass) which decreases as the amount of hole increases. I'm not sure how that helps. {le cirla joi kevna} can increase, decrease or remain constant (in volume, in mass) as the amount of holes increases, depending on how you make the increase. Same goes for the cheese mass. If you increase the amount of hole by removing cheese mass then obviously it decreases, as you say, but if you increase the amount of hole by some other method, the cheese mass may remain constant or it could increase. Then there's the eternal question of what does {ni} mean. If I understand {marji} correctly it would be used for example in something like: ti marji lo cirla le ka ce'u se kevna This consists of some cheese shaped with holes. I'm not sure I understand how {ni marji} gives "mass". 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. co'o mi'e xorxes