Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:53:24 EDT

In a message dated 6/5/2001 12:55:26 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.