From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jan 15 12:56:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 15 Jan 2002 20:56:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 66762 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2002 20:56:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2002 20:56:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2002 20:56:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.3a.205f4300 (4402) for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:56:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3a.205f4300.2975f18d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:56:45 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Can an atheist really understand religious text? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3a.205f4300.2975f18d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12947 --part1_3a.205f4300.2975f18d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/2002 9:41:43 AM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > The Sapir-Whorf implications of this article should be so glaringly > obvious that I should not have to explain why I forwarded this. > I don't see the Sapir-Whorf implications, since I don't see any contact with questions of language at all, let alone syntax. This eems to be about pretty standard web-of-belief problems a la Quine ("the indeterminacy of translation" being the nearest point of that field to S-W). It also seems to me that Bar-Elli's point is so trivial that I can't quite appreciate the opponents'. --part1_3a.205f4300.2975f18d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/2002 9:41:43 AM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:


The Sapir-Whorf implications of this article should be so glaringly
obvious that I should not have to explain why I forwarded this.


I don't see the Sapir-Whorf implications, since I don't see any contact with questions of language at all, let alone syntax. This eems to be about pretty standard web-of-belief problems a la Quine ("the indeterminacy of translation" being the nearest point of that field to S-W).  It also seems to me that Bar-Elli's point is so trivial that I can't quite appreciate the opponents'. --part1_3a.205f4300.2975f18d_boundary--