Re: Dao De Jing [was Re: Promoting Lojban]

[Lin Zhemin <ljm@marx.ljm.wownet.net>]

zo xorxes. cusku di'e

>             ro relselse'u bakni cu citka lo srasu
>             Every two-headed cow eats grass.

I think this sentence is logic; since, whether the two-head cow exists
or not doesn't affect its logical value. Even something like "the Dao
which can be told is not the eternal Dao" is logic (and thus defined
that the "Dao" isn't able to be told.)

IIRC, the Brochure claimed that one can even say some irony sentences
, but the sentence itself is never contraditory, as long as you treat
lojban as a meta language. (Indeely I doubt this statement. Is there
some examples yet?)

IMHO, some old stuff like
	le jetnu cu na jetnu (1)
is internally contradictory in the system of logic. And the old
proverb
	ro da te poi mi do tavla zo'u ko na krici da (2)
(Euh. I know there is some grammatical error...)
is symentically contradictory. In both situation, how can you
answer a "go'i" or "nago'i" to the speaker? You just can say
something like "mi tugni la'edi'u". 

Well, then the question split into two, while the prejudge of
Sapir-Whold theory is right:
1) Logban is internally based on predicate logic. We know that
   is possible to _write_ something irony in logical form, like
	A is not A.
   In formal logic, we know that the _statement_ is false; we
   don't think at first glance that it could be something logically
   false like
	(The statement is true that) A is not A.
   So we know that is possible to _write_, but hard to _describe_.
2) Can someone grew up in Logbanistan believe in / understand /
   write something like the examples above? The pattern of their
   thinking is limited by predicate logic, as ours limited by our
   own culture.

Discussion?


-- 

.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