[lojban] Re: Something Wittgenstein wrote ...

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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
> 
> 
> 
>