From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 05 07:53:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 14:53:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 2262 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 14:53:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 14:53:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 14:53:30 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.a5.16a3a4e3 (4324) for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:53:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a5.16a3a4e3.284e4c64_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a5.16a3a4e3.284e4c64_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/5/2001 12:55:26 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > read what I wrote, please read the original Lojban; don't rely upon pc's > faulty translations, which are sometimes the opposite of what I said. > > For instance, pc claimed (and reiterated) that translating Alice was > "evil". I rather don't agree.> Well, I did not in fact claim that: I said I would probably have (given the choices between "foolish" and "evil" for two events) reversed xod's choices. Happily ther were other choices and I made those. And xod does indeed *assert* that translating Alice is evil. xod also *expresses* a number of emotional responses to that claim, some of them apparently at variance with the claim made -- though they might be merely shock at finding oneself making such a claim. I am still unsure what empathetic opining is --xod got so into my head that agreement resulted? The sentence in question is < .a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e > in which the only assertion is < le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci >; the rest is emotive response. I suspect xod meant the assertion to be in quotes or some of the emotive expressions to be assertions to the effect that xod reesponded thus to my assertion that... But what is written is written, and I refuse to be blamed for taking people at their word. --part1_a5.16a3a4e3.284e4c64_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/5/2001 12:55:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


<You certainly aren't quoting me! And for the record, if anybody wants to
read what I wrote, please read the original Lojban; don't rely upon pc's
faulty translations, which are sometimes the opposite of what I said.

For instance, pc claimed (and reiterated) that translating Alice was
"evil". I rather don't agree.>


Well, I did not in fact claim that: I said I would probably have (given the
choices between "foolish" and "evil" for two events) reversed xod's choices.  
Happily ther were other choices and I made those.  And xod does indeed
*assert* that translating Alice is evil.  xod also *expresses* a number of
emotional responses to that claim, some of them apparently at variance with
the claim made  -- though they might be merely shock at finding oneself
making such a claim.  I am still unsure what empathetic opining is --xod got
so into my head that agreement resulted?  The sentence in question is <
.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e > in which the
only assertion is < le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci >; the rest is emotive
response.  I suspect xod meant the assertion to be in quotes or some of the
emotive expressions to be assertions to the effect that xod reesponded thus
to my assertion that...  But what is written is written, and I refuse to be
blamed for taking people at their word.
--part1_a5.16a3a4e3.284e4c64_boundary--