Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: literalism

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:13:46 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> la xod cusku di'e
> 
> >It is beautiful and true, but I don't think the truth is beautiful. Big
> >difference!
> 
> Of course, you're playing with words. Nothing wrong with that,
> but it doesn't translate well into Lojban. Your contrast of
> {melbi je fatci} vs. {melbi fatci} didn't make much sense
> to me. They mean just about the same.

.i na tugni 
.i le jufra cu melbi 
.i le jufra cu fatci
.i le du'u go'i cu tolmelbi 

> 
> An awful truth can be beautufully expressed. The expression
> is beautiful, the thing expressed is awful.
> 

mi ba'o troci cusku la'e di'u

> >Can a sentence be true?
> 
> In English? Yes. The word "sentence" can refer both to the
> expression, the words, and to the thing expressed, the meaning.
> In Lojban I don't know, it depends how you ask the question.
> 
> Actually Lojban is messy in this regard too, although it tries
> somewhat unsuccessfully to clear it up. It starts with the wrong
> foot by having the simplest words (di'u, di'e, etc.) refer to
> the least useful concept. We usually want to talk about what
> we express with sentences, not about the sentences themselves.
> And to make things worst it is difficult to know for many
> predicates whether they are intended to be used with {di'u}
> or {la'e di'u}.
> 

ji'u la'e di'u cumki fa le du'u mi puza drani

> >That topic will surely last us a few weeks of debate, no?
> 
> i ie go'i va'o le nu ma'a za'o pilno le glico

.iseni'ibo mi'o stali le za'i lojbo

-----
"...widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights 
perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass 
killings...measures which constitute...crimes against humanity.''
UN Commission on Human Rights, 19 Oct 2000