From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 20 12:02:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 19:02:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 98263 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 19:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 19:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.164) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 19:02:44 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:02:44 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:02:44 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Translation request Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:02:44 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2002 19:02:44.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D723D10:01C260D8] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la xod cusku di'e > > Using {le bangu} suggests that you're talking of a particular > > language, and, even though they obviously do have a particular > > language in mind, they don't present it that way. > >huh? They say: "A language with such and such properties is the best solution". They don't say that they have a particular language in mind. Obviously they want you to conclude: "Hey, Esperanto fits that description!", but the sentence doesn't say it nor imply it. > Repeating traji > > is necessary because they claim it is the most fundamental, > > the most economic, and the most democratic, not just the most > > in all three things together but the most in each of them, which > > is a stronger claim. > >I don't agree that repetition creates a stronger claim. Suppose Esperanto was the simplest, English the most economical, Chinese the most democratic (just for the sake of argument), and Lojban the most simple-economical-democratic when all is measured together. The claim is not for a language that is the most when everything is measured together, but one that is the most in each one of the properties, so not even Lojban in our example would pass the test. Of course the whole thing is pretty vacuous anyway. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com