Re: [lojban] RE: literalism

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la xod cusku di'e

> It is beautiful and true, but I don't think the truth is beautiful. Big
> difference!

Of course, you're playing with words. Nothing wrong with that,
but it doesn't translate well into Lojban. Your contrast of
{melbi je fatci} vs. {melbi fatci} didn't make much sense
to me. They mean just about the same.

An awful truth can be beautufully expressed. The expression
is beautiful, the thing expressed is awful.

> Can a sentence be true?

In English? Yes. The word "sentence" can refer both to the
expression, the words, and to the thing expressed, the meaning.
In Lojban I don't know, it depends how you ask the question.

Actually Lojban is messy in this regard too, although it tries
somewhat unsuccessfully to clear it up. It starts with the wrong
foot by having the simplest words (di'u, di'e, etc.) refer to
the least useful concept. We usually want to talk about what
we express with sentences, not about the sentences themselves.
And to make things worst it is difficult to know for many
predicates whether they are intended to be used with {di'u}
or {la'e di'u}.

> That topic will surely last us a few weeks of debate, no?

i ie go'i va'o le nu ma'a za'o pilno le glico

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.