Re: Tao

[Lin Zhemin <ljm@xxxx.xxx.xxxxxx.xxxx]

Mon, 22 Feb 1999, zo Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group(lojbab@lojban.org) cusku di'e
> Not following this thread closely, but I haven't seen anyone mention that
> we have dadjo as a gismu pertaining to the Tao (without defining it).

There was someone mentioned it. But according to the ancient (:Q)
gismu.lst, it is defined as "Tao of Taoism; culture/nation/religion ac"
Maybe the definition can be changed to "Dao(Tao), as the description of
Daodejing written by Laozi, the word itself is w/o definition", but the
former one is not suitable, since one may be confused w/ religious
Taoism. So {zo dao.} would be better, IMHO, if nothing is gonna change.
If dadjo is redefined to the second one, then we can surely use
something like {dajkralijda} to indicate the religious Taoism.


-- 

.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.	==> ½Ð¤ä«ùÅÞ¿è»y¨¥¡C
co'o mi'e lindjy,min.	==> ¦A¨£¡A§Ú¬OªL­õ¥Á¡C
Fingerprint20 = CE32 D237 02C0 FE31 FEA9 B858 DE8F AE2D D810 F2D9