From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Apr 23 13:38:45 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DPROf-0008Hs-Km
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:38:37 -0700
Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DPROe-0008Hd-E7
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:38:37 -0700
Message-ID: <20050423203804.86500.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:38:04 PDT
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Something Wittgenstein wrote ...
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9867
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

A bit of both, I think.  The objectionable forms
present no difficulty in Lojban, where they are
as wrongheaded (or not) as the English and the
German.  The tricky part is to say whaat is meant
(assuming we can figurte that out) without
falling into the traps languages (including
Lojban probably) lay for us.

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Or even {lo nu morsi cu temcau tcini}.
> > >
> > Well, {tcini} is less likely than {fasnu} to
> > imply time, so this is at least not
> inherently a
> > contradiction.  But, of course, x's being
> dead is
> > timeless only from x's point of view; to the
> > living x's being dead continues on from x's
> > death.  On the other hand, "timeless" often
> just
> > means "doesn't end" and that is true of one's
> > being dead -- so long as time doesn't end
> anyhow.
> 
> Or so long as one doesn't resurrect or
> reincarnate, 
> I suppose. We have {vitno} for the neverending
> sense:
> 
>     lo nu morsi cu vitno
>     "Death is permanent."
> 
> But are we trying to express an icontrovertible
> truth
> about death, or are we trying to translate an
> objectionable
> form of expression?
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
> 
> 
> 
>