From pnewton@gmx.de Tue Apr 29 08:05:53 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postman.arcor-online.net ([151.189.0.87])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19AWfr-0007kJ-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:05:39 -0700
Received: from hamwpne1 (pc1-oxfd1-5-cust27.oxfd.cable.ntl.com [62.254.134.27])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by postman.arcor-online.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3TF5ZJ8088049
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:05:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Philip Newton" <pnewton@gmx.de>
Organization: datenrevision GmbH & Co. OHG
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:05:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [lojban] Re: le jdaselsku pe lo nunjdajirgau .e lo cesysai
Message-ID: <3EAEB0D1.28554.70E612F@localhost>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <20030404020034.87403.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3E8964E6.21679.34364A@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-description: Mail message body
X-archive-position: 5008
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: pnewton@gmx.de
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Apologies for the belated response.

la xorxes cu cusku di'e

> la filip cusku di'e
> 
> > Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of 
> > the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.
> > 
> > ki'u
> > le nu
> >   catni fi tu'a la .iesus.xristos.
> > kei
> > mi jdajirgau do
> > fi'o cmene be le patfu .e le bersa .e le censa pruxi fe'u ku
> > vau
> > .a'o re'e
> 
> I suggest something like:
> 
>    ca'e teca'i tu'a la iesus xristos mi jdajirgau do
>    seka'i le patfu ku joi le bersa ku joi le censa pruxi 
>    i a'ore'e
> 
> ca'e: This indicates that it is a performative. I am not just 
> describing what I'm doing, but by saying this words I am
> actually baptizing you.

Nifty; thanks. Yes.

> teca'i: seems better than ki'u

Indeed; it seems to be just the right thing here.

> seka'i: that's what "in the name of" means, doesn't it?

I think so, yes.

How would a proxy baptism be worded, though? "I baptise you for/on 
behalf of X, in the name of Y" - there are two representatives.

Maybe something like {mi jdajirgau do pe seka'i xy. seka'i .y.bu}, to 
show that you represent X while the whole ordinance (the selbri) is 
done representing Y.

> I think {fi'o cmene be} would mean something like "naming
> the Father, and the Son ..." 

Probably... I didn't know much about {fi'o} when I wrote that. (I still 
don't remember the details, but it's probably not what I was looking 
for.)

> joi: I'm not too sure here. Is it supposed to mean that I
> baptize you in the name of the Father, and I baptize you in
> the name of the Son, and I baptize you in the name of the
> Holy Ghost? If so, then {.e} would be right, but maybe {joi} 
> sounds more trinitarian?

Well, I didn't mean it sound trinitarian, but {joi} could still be 
correct here since I suppose one is representing all three. (I think 
{jo'u} would be most trinitarian, from what I understood.)

Thank you for your comments!

mu'o mi'e .filip.
-- 
filip.niutyn. <pnewton@gmx.de>