From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jul 20 00:33:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20289 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2000 07:33:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jul 2000 07:33:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2000 07:33:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.119] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jul 2000 07:33:44 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:33:35 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: cmufla Message-ID: <8l6a0f+b8v8@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <001d01bff214$21b8f360$22191bc1@rus.ger.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1065 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, "Daniel Gudlat" wrote: > la pier cusku di'e > > > Is there a way to distinguish in Lojban between Grundgesetz and > Verfassung? > > Why should there be? As far as I can tell these are two different words > for absolutely the same concept. Now, you could quite conceivably come > up with two different tanru/lujvo, one for Grundgesetz/basic law, the > other for Verfassung/constitution, but why would anyone want to make > things as complicated as that? Daniel is right (and wrong): the word "Grundgesetz" was specially created after WW2 in the German Federal Republic (*not* whole Germany!) to avoid the expression "Verfassung" and stress the *provisory* character of this special kind of constitution. Very few people really were aware of this purpose and the different semantics. Now the "Provisorium" has been "zementiert" - and not only the word but also its contents have survived! Is it still worth/useful to remember the different meanings? Maybe for historians - writing in Lojban ... co'o mi'e .aulun.