Theology (was Re: Trobriand Island masses)

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> I suspect that if we were to examine the presumed inheritances of
> properties of the 3 elements of the Trinity we might understand
> Trobriand Island masses, and gain some insights into Lojban masses.

I think that according to the dogma, the mystery of the Holy Trinity
is inherently not understandable by mere mortals (but I'm not
really a theologician). Would that mean that masses are beyond our
capabilities as well?

If instead of all this unending discussion in English, we would agree
to write down twenty sentences *in Lojban* where the contrast between
mass and individual is clearly shown, I don't think we would need to
look for answers in religion.

For example, the difference between {le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}
and {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, which hopefully everyone
understands and agrees with, makes the main difference quite clear.

Talking about molecules doesn't really clarify anything to me, but
if anyone thinks it helps, then a couple of sentences in Lojban
showing how would be most welcome.

> Hmmm.  Except for the Lord's Prayer and a chunk of
> Genesis, we don't have much theological text in Lojban.  It would be a
> worthy addition to the corpus, and then someone can tackle Aquinas (xo
> {angels} ka'e dansu cpana lo pijne jipno).

The angels are another good example. The lujvo list gives {notcrida} for
angel, then:

        lei xo notcrida ka'e dansu cpana lo pijne jipno
        The mass of how many angels can dance on a pin's head?

It wouldn't be of interest to ask {xo le notcrida}, (how many of the
angels) can each dance there, probably all of them can. The question
of theological interest is how many can do it together, so we have
to use masses. Another way of putting the question might be
{le notcrida xomei}, which is also a mass of angels.

>  If I see one person and I say "mi viska
> lo'e prenu" and a short while later I see a different person and can say
> "mi viska lo'e prenu", I am not so myopic as to think I have only seen
> one person.  But "mi viska re lo'e prenu" would be far more correct than
> "mi viska lo'e prenu remei" because at no time were two people's images
> on my retina.

Even better would be {mi reroi viska lo'e prenu}. I now agree with And
that {re lo'e prenu} is not very nice.

Jorge