From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 13 02:21:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5362 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 09:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 09:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r18.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 09:21:31 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.aa.65151bc (3953) for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:01:07 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Translating into lojban To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-12 21:11:46 EDT, zon9 writes: << How can sentences of the form, (1) "To love evil is as confused as to hate good" and (2) "Squares, by definition, have four sides", be accurately translated into lojban? >> Well, what exactly do they mean. Can an act, for example, really be confused or are we actually talking about the people who perform the act (well, I'm not sure that loving and hating are acts to be performed, but that is the general idea). And what kind of confusion is it -- mental? emotional? intellectual? Presumably, one cannot will to love or hate, so it is not volitional. Further, is this a love of evil per se or a love of evil actions or events? And, finally, does the person who loves evil love what s/he thinks is evil or what we think evil, but they good. This is of course hooked up with the question of what kind of confusion is involved. Since definitions apply to words, not things, I suppose we could shift this all up a level and give the definition of "square" or . But there is also an evidential that says "by definition," however, it seems to be only for personal stipulations and performatives. So maybe, work from "That every square has four sides follows from the meaning of "square"" -- a mixed strategy.