Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Le Petit Prince: Can we legally translate it?

From: Björn Gohla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:47:52 +0200

On Wednesday 11 September 2002 23:25, [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> The pre-Positivists might be a little more available -- certainly some
> Russell is, but probably not Mad Ludwig. And Frege, of course. But then,
> it occurs to me, most of the Logical Positivist stuff is not originally in
> English anyhow. And, Russell aside, English language philosophy at the end
> of the 19th and beginning of the 20th is pretty dismal. There is the other
> James of course, and Pierce, but the one writes more like a novelist (in
> contrast to his brother, the novelist) and the other needs English
> translations even for his English language papers (How to Make Our Ideas
> Clear is the most inaccurately named work in the history of the universe).

back up a bit more and you get to john stuart mill, or even further back to 
thomas hobbes, john locke, and george berkley, to name a few enlish language 
philophers who influenced logical positivism. but then again, they might have 
written in latin;)

on the other hand, if logical positivism is in such demand, why not do 
summaries in lojban instead of translations?
- -- 
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all, And in the zone bind them.
pub 1024D/834F4976 2001-01-07 Björn Gohla (Wissenschaftler, Weltbürger) 
<[email-masked]>
Key fingerprint = 9FF4 FEDA CCDF DA0E 14D5 8129 6C14 3C39 834F 4976
sub 1024g/29571FE2 2001-01-07