From robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR Mon Feb 22 02:07:57 1999 X-Digest-Num: 70 Message-ID: <44114.70.379.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:07:57 +0200 From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: Dao De Jing [was Re: Promoting Lojban] la lindjy'min cusku di'e > zo robin cusku di'e > Surely this means "The word 'Robin' says the following"?! > > > la lin. cusku di'e > > .i .e'o mi cmene lindjy,min. ko > {.ai .izo'o} though given the way this thread's going, I might just start writing {la lindzy}! > > (Well, do you think it's more appreciable to use > ".i .e'o ko te cmene lindjy,min mi" ?) > Both are grammatical. I like the first one best, as it seems more, er, Lojbanic, somehow. What I mean is that someone tranlsating into Lojban would be more likely to feel the {ko} had to go at the front, while a native of Lojbanistan probably wouldn't. > > > Aesthetically I like Gia Fu Feng's best. Technically, I like for Zheng Manqing's commentary, based on > > the Han commentators', which is available in a rather prosaic English translation (I forget who > > translated it - one of Zheng's taijiquan students). The problem is that any translation is influenced > > by a particular school of Taoism (in the case of English translations, usually by Tang dynasty > > commentators, AFAIK). > > BTW, it is recommended that you set the right margin to lesser than 76 > characters, for the convenience of readers working in Un*x boxes.. :-) > It's set to 65 characters, so the problem is with your mail server, not my mail. > > The book I have is commented by Wangbi (a thinker) in Jin dynasty, in the > 5th century. I don't know if there is some commentator in Han dynasty > has noted Daodejing. But I know that the version of Wangbi has some > misinteprets, according to the explanation of Wang Anshi (poem, prime > minister in Song dynasty, the 9th or 10th century). When I read the > book, I refer to two books, one of Wangbi and the one of recent experts > who adopted the explanation of Wang Anshi. > IIRC, Wangbi was a neo-Daoist and emphasised naturalness, spontaneity etc. The Han dynasty commentators were more into the psychophysiological practices. > > I have no idea how English version of Daodejing is like. I've read some > quotations in books like "the C++ programming language", but the > translation weirds.. :Q > I bet it would. > > > (1) Predicate logic and its offshoots are a lot more flexible than Aristotelian logic. I would hope > > logicians have got to the point where they aren't just relexicalising Greek! > > I have no idea about this, since I'm not logician... :-) > But in our textbook is there only Greek logic. Even fuzzy logic is for > some advanced people to read. > Fuzzy logic is a pretty simple idea, it's just the ramifications of the maths can be a bit tricky when you actually come to apply it to things like cameras and washing machines. > > > (2) Lojban is more flexible than predicate logic. > > It's expressive, admittably. But don't forget that we're of our own > cultures, not of the one of Logbanistan. :-) So, we get to express our cultures in Lojban. Then other people get to express other cultures in Lojban. Then it all gets mixed up. Sounds like fun. co'o mi'e robin.