From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat May 27 12:37:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12014 invoked from network); 27 May 2000 19:37:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 May 2000 19:37:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.106) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 May 2000 19:37:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 12418 invoked by uid 0); 27 May 2000 19:37:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000527193726.12417.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.152.86 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 27 May 2000 12:37:26 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.152.86] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:37:26 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2862 la alfred cusku di'e >Jorge, > >thanks for your prompt translation of 'Yu Chih Lo' (finpe pluka/Piski >Hedo). Wow! - As a newbie, I'm now having a whole bunch of >stuff for further studying the Lojban language. BTW, comparing your >version (and the English one too) with the ancient Chinese >text, one easily can realize how the amount of words differs - Alas, >that seems to be the price for unambiguity! I translated straight from the English, I don't know any Chinese. Even so, the Lojban version came out a little shorter than the English, but I'm sure that someone translating from the original could get a much better Lojban version. You can certainly make it more ambiguous if that's what is wanted. >I appreciate your view on both philosophers seemingly just holding >their positions respective - we recently had a thorough >discussion on this topic in our Chinese forum (except their different >standpoints they start from, each philosopher apparently is >using the same 'logic'). They both seem to take for granted that there is such thing as a pleasure of fish. Chuangtze says he can know what that pleasure is in the same way he can know what other people know, by looking at his feelings. Huitze says he cannot know what that pleasure is, and won't accept the common sense that if fish do take pleasure at something then darting about seems like a likely candidate. Neither of them seem to consider the possibility that maybe fish don't take pleasure at things. >As for writing Chinese names (cmene) in Lojban: >I'd tend to prefer writing tcuang,ts. (Chuang-tzu/Zhuangzi), because >in Chinese there aren't voiced consonants, just unaspirated >and aspirated ones. The only problem is that you can't have a voiced-unvoiced pair in Lojban, so {g,t} even separated by a comma, is not permitted. >Yet, since the rules most probably (also in >writing cmene) don't allow the form tc'uang. No, {'} can only come between two vowels. >(aspirated consonant), >perhaps one would have to write djuang. (unaspirated) and tcuang >(aspirated) Those two are fine. >or maybe (I'd like this better) tjuang and tcuang. {tj} is not allowed. >(BTW, is 'ng' cluster allowed??? Otherwise one would be forced to >write -uan.) Yes, it is allowed, but the g is fully pronounced. >The last sound in Chuang-tzu/Zhuangzi is *not* a vowel, so it's >written -dz, maybe -tz (unaspirated) - (tzu/zi) and -ts >(aspirated) - (tz'u/ci). >Be aware of that in tse/ze there is indeed a vowel, hence -y in >Lojban. > >Some Chinese cmene: >mau.tzydun(g). (Mao Tse-tung/Mao Zedong) "tz" not allowed, maybe mau.zydun >dyng.siaupin(g). (Teng Hsiao-p'ing/Deng Xiaoping) Ok. >lau,tz. (Lao-tzu/Laozi) "tz" not allowed. Maybe lau,ts >tcan(g),an. (Ch'ang-an/Chang'an) Ok. >xu(e)i,tz. (Huei-tzu/Huizi) xuei,ts >.aulun(g). (aolung/aolong) ;)) > >co'o mi'e .alfred. > co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com