Subject: Re: [lojban] Purpose of bridi

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:09:31 EDT

In a message dated 6/11/2001 11:56:00 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I disagree. I have studied alchemical theory at length and my understanding
> is that, since (for example) gold and lead are both originally made of the
> prima materia, they are the same thing (as Hermes puts it, lead is as gold)
> and so we can do 'miracles of one thing' - miracles which stem from the fact
> that there is only one thing. The one is as good as the other for any
> purpose at all, we just see them as different.
> 

Interesting and quite plausible, whether for puddler or High Art, but it 
doesn't fit this passage very well. I can't find any of my copies (lost in 
some move or other or just misfiled somewhere?) so I can't check other 
translations to get a better fix on the original. The "for" is the problem: 
if it is purposive, then something along the line I suggested seems called 
for; if it is explanatory, then the grammar is wrong. In the latter case, 
{mintu} would probably be better than {dunli}. Maybe that is why Robin CA 
required the things to be translated into Lojban be originally in English.