Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont

[Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>]

la xorxes. spuda mi di'e

> > + syllogism = le cmulojmo'a
>
> Hmmm... Could you explain a bit how you get
> to that?

Remember, I did say I wasn't satisfied with it.
For what it's worth, my explanation:

(basis type-of logic) type-of pattern.

> This is how I would do it using those
> components:

"Using those components" may be a suboptimal
solution.  I haven't thought of better
components, but perhaps someone else will.

> lojycmu [logji jicmu]: j1 (j2=l1) l2
>         x1 is a fundamental/basic principle
>         of logic reflected in the reasoning
>         of (text) x2.

You're thinking of a syllogism as a text.
I'm thinking of a syllogism as a type of
pattern in logic.

> It is important when you create a lujvo to
> account for all the places of the component
> gismu, not just for their x1 places.

When I did that for {gimterzbavla}, la lojbab.
seemingly implied the opposite.

> > + immortal = cu vi'orji'e
>
> I prefer ji'ervi'o:
>
> ji'ervi'o [jmive vitno]: v1=j1 [v2=ka jmive]
>           x1 is immortal/permanently alive.
>
> I hadn't noticed the -bi'o/-vi'o contrast
> before.  Really neat! As a Spanish speaker, I
> will have to be careful to make the b/v
> distinction.
>
> You can defend vi'orji'e, I suppose, but I find
> ji'ervi'o more harmonious.

(Permanent type-of alive) versus (alive type-of
permanence).  Hmm.  What kind of harmony are you
talking about?

> > + philosophy = lezu'o pijysisku
>
> I think philosophy has to be a saske.

No way.  Absolutely not.  Over my dead body!  %^>

> I don't know whether kamprije (wisdom) is the
> best word to form that lujvo, but I can't think
> of anything less bad at the moment.

According to what I learned in school, the
original Greek word was a compound meaning "love
of wisdom".

> > + hypothesis = le skecipsmadi
>
> Maybe just {selru'a}. In any case, a skecipsmadi
> would be a hypothesizer, not a hypothesis.

Yes, you're right; it should be {skecipselsmadi}.

As for {selru'a}, this creates a subtle problem
in the ethics of translation.  Look again at the
passage I hope to learn from translating:

> The real question has been:  How seriously
> are we to take the proposition that men and
> Socrates are mortal?  For there exists a
> well-known counter-proposition to the effect
> that men and Socrates are _im_mortal; or at
> least that what we call their personalities
> or souls are immortal.  In fact, Socrates
> himself, if the _Dialogues_ of Plato are to
> be trusted, was one of the first to advance
> the hypothesis of the soul's immortality.

"advance the hypothesis":

Lamont is using the jargon of post-Baconian
science, quite anachronistically, to describe
Socrates' statements on immortality.  Seems to
me that we cannot translate Lamont faithfully
unless we do the same.  {selru'a} or some
other word might be more faithful to Socrates.
But, in translating this passage, we have to
be faithful to Lamont, & that means using a
word which connotes the scientific method.
To improve upon Lamont's original (whether by
eliminating this anachronism or in other ways)
would IMO be unethical.

Wouldn't it?

> Hope this helps,

Yes, thanks for chiming in.  Your comments
were helpful in any number of ways.  Well,
any positive number!

> co'o mi'e xorxes

co'omi'e markl.