From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jun 11 11:10:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 18:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 92409 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 18:09:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 18:09:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 18:09:41 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.71.e31ca79 (3951) for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <71.e31ca79.2856635b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:09:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Purpose of bridi To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_71.e31ca79.2856635b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_71.e31ca79.2856635b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/11/2001 11:56:00 AM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com 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 is that, since (for example) gold and lead are both originally made of the 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. --part1_71.e31ca79.2856635b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/11/2001 11:56:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
ragnarok@pobox.com 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is that, since (for example) gold and lead are both originally made of the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. --part1_71.e31ca79.2856635b_boundary--