From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 13 13:48:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28405 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 20:48:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 20:48:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo14.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.4) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 20:48:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.e1.59d2710 (618) for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:48:19 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3045 robin: <> Welcome to the club. ivan: <interpretations: `mother who is a goddess' (Thetis) and `mother >of a god' (Alcmene).>> I would want the second {mamta cevni} but I tend to be formulaic about this stuff (and, of course, that could be "god of mothers"). <> Amen <> Tricky. It is a title, so presumably has a transparent meaning, but it has become a name for all practical purposes (cf. "Pharaoh" and, I suspect, "Christ," which has lost its "the"). webster: <> Nope. At most it says I think I know this, at least I am asserting it, but there is no guarantee that I am right. But that is the same situation that I am bound to be in if I say anything about the real God. If I talk only about what I call "God," that may be much safer, but it is correspondingly less interesting-- though it may just as likely be false. And, of course, if I really believe in my God, then I think he is the real God and so will go with {lo} anyhow. (Of course, {cevni} is relativized inherently anyhow.) <> Yes, "offended" is the wrong word -- I just borrowed it from robin. "Puzzled" might be better. xorxes to robin: <> i. iecai i e'o bau la ba'e lojban