From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 30 12:31:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 19:31:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 56437 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 19:31:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 19:31:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 19:31:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.d0.166e2f85 (14383) for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:31:50 EDT Subject: RE:[lojban] Request for grammar clarifications To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_alt_boundary" --part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 10:00:39 AM Central Daylight Time, robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR writes: > ro cevni du la .alax." = "Every god is identical with Allah". > > But does this really capture the sense of "la ilahi il'allah" (which I > assume > it is a translation of)? > Well, the formula looks to be negative ("la"), and the usual trat is "There is no God but Allah" so it might literally be {no da poi na du la .allax. cu cevni}, which, unfortunately, allows for atheism, so it is not right either -- for so does the cowan's version. As I was saying about quantifiers, ... --part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 10:00:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR writes:


ro cevni du la .alax." = "Every god is identical with Allah".

But does this really capture the sense of "la ilahi il'allah" (which I
assume
it is a translation of)?  


Well, the formula looks to be negative ("la"), and the usual trat is "There
is no God but Allah" so it might literally be {no da poi na du la .allax. cu
cevni}, which, unfortunately, allows for atheism, so it is not right either
-- for so does the cowan's version. As I was saying about quantifiers, ... --part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_alt_boundary-- --part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc05.mail.aol.com (v78_r3.3) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:00:39 -0400 Received: from hm.egroups.com (hm.egroups.com [208.50.99.198]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:00:24 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-7381-991234779-pycyn=aol.com@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.53] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2001 14:59:40 -0000 X-Sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 14:59:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 95348 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 14:59:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 14:59:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr) (139.179.30.24) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 14:59:27 -0000 Received: from neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr (neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.97.69]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C6FC125C0 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:06:06 +0300 (EEST) Organization: Bilkent University To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <3B13AD35.8080204@reutershealth.com> In-Reply-To: <3B13AD35.8080204@reutershealth.com> Message-Id: <0105301800360B.06088@neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr> From: Robin Turner MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:00:36 +0300 Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday 29 May 2001 17:07, John Cowan wrote: > Nick Nicholas wrote: > > Is {lo ninmu du la djiotis.} an erroneous statement? Not stylistically > > undesirable, but demonstrably illogical or false? > > No, certainly not, given that "la djiotis. ninmu" holds. It means > that there is some woman who is identical with (= the same object > as) Djiotis. Incidentally, is there any difference between {lo ninmu du la djiotis.} and {lo ninmu du la'e lu djiotis. li'u} ? > > > Is the fact that du is > > intended to render as equal *names* of a thing, rather than just > > descriptions, sufficient to do so? > > Not at all. Indeed, using "du" between names is a rather marginal > use, as in "Cicero is Tully". The more reasonable uses are things > like "Fred is the man who mows the lawn" and "The man I saw at the > beach is the spy who was arrested last week" (Take that, Ortcutt!), > where we relate a name to an in-mind description. Using a veridical > description instead is certainly both grammatical and reasonable, > as in "ro cevni du la .alax." = "Every god is identical with Allah". But does this really capture the sense of "la ilahi il'allah" (which I assume it is a translation of)? robin.tr To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_d0.166e2f85.2846a4a6_boundary--