From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Dec 03 13:26:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 21:26:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 60542 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 21:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 21:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.193) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 22:26:33 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:25:28 -0800 Received: from 200.42.153.3 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Dec 2000 21:25:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.3] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] common words Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 21:25:27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2000 21:25:28.0206 (UTC) FILETIME=[8EA142E0:01C05D6F] From: "Jorge Llambias" la jimc cusku di'e >Or, tolmirgau means "clarify" in the sense of removing >impediments to understanding such as jargon. I don't have a problem with the same word encompassing both senses of bringing from obscure or coded form into clear form. The only thing is that your {tolmifrygau} and mine will have x2 and x3 places interchanged. ("mir" is a rafsi for minra, BTW) But what would you use for "decipher", if {tolmifrygau} is unacceptable? >(About "decoding the human genome": it isn't cyphertext. Our intellects >are figuring out how to read it in its own represention, the same one our >cells have been reading for billions of years. Well, we're trying to figure out a code so as to convert from an existing form which is obscure to us, to a form that we can understand. That seems to me to fit mifra well. >Similarly we don't "decode" >.aulun's big5 Chinese poetry that he's translating into Lojban; readers >with the skill and the software (I have neither) read the texts on the >texts' own terms.) In many cases, when I read Lojban I feel like I am actually decoding, because it is pretty clear that the author was encoding. Only in rare cases I feel as if the author was producing the text fluently enough to be compared with natural language use. This is perfectly natural, we can't expect Lojban to be a language until there are actual language users. And I don't think you should need any software to read Lojban in its own terms! co'o mi'e xorxes _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com