Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont

["Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

la markl di'e cusku

> > 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.

But you may need the text meaning for your passage:

> "All men are mortal" begins the most famous
> of all syllogisms, and it proceeds to tell
> us that "Socrates is a man" and "therefore
> Socrates is mortal."

Is "All men..." a syllogism? If it is, then syllogisms
are texts. In any case, {lojycmu} gives you both
possibilities: x1 is the logic or pattern, and x2 is
the text or embodiement of the pattern. For example:

lu ro remna cu morsi li'u cfapau le misrai be
lei se lojycmu  ibabo ra tecu'u mi'a lu la SOkrates
cu remna i seni'ibo la SOkrates cu morsi li'u

Besides, "se lojycmu" almost _sounds_ like "syllogism".
Surely that must count for something... :)

> > 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.

It wouldn't be the first time lojbab and I disagreed about
something. This is how I would interpret {gimterzbavla}:

gimterzba [gismu te zbasu]: tz1 (tz2=g1) tz3 g2
                            x1 is the material x2 used
                            to make a gismu for relationship x3

(I don't consider the x3 and x4 of gismu because I don't think they
should be there in the first place. x4 is irrelevant to the gismu
word-meaning relationship, and it's well covered by {rafsi} in any
case. As for x3, I wouldn't know how to use it in a sentence.)

> > 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?

Harmony in the expansion of the lujvo: {ji'ervi'o} is
simply {vitno be le ka jmive}. {vi'orji'e} would
be something like {jmive je vitno [be le ka jmive]}.

There are two main types of lujvo: Those where the
modifier component fills a slot of the main component,
and those where the two components act jointly. For
example:

tsudegji [rotsu degji] d1=r1 d2
                       x1 is a thumb (thick-finger) of x2.

degro'u [degji rotsu] r1=d1 d2
                      x1 is a thumb (finger-thick) of x2.

In this case, both orders are equivalent, because both words
describe the same oject, something that is both thick and a
finger. {rotsu je degji}.

In other lujvo (the majority, I think) the modifier
component fills a slot of the main component. For example:

rirnybu'a [rirni bruna]: b1 (b2=r1) r2
                        x1 is the uncle (brother of parent) of x2.

Here of course the lujvo is not reversible.

There are some cases, like {ji'ervi'o}, where it seems at first
that both expansions can be made: something that is permanent
in being alive, or the symetrical one, something that is both alive
and permanent. But this latter form I find kind of twisted,
because you still have to say that it's permanent in the property
of being alive. Similar considerations can be made for lujvo
made with traji (extreme), mutce (very), etc. I prefer them as
suffixes, but they have also been used as prefixes. Both are
justifiable, but I find one justification more economical.

> 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:[...]
> "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.

An old chauvinistic adage says that translations are
like women: the more faithful the less beautiful,
and viceversa.

> {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.

Can you really get such a word in Lojban, given that
there are no scientists writing their papers in it,
so that you could tell what the word with such
connotations would be? It may well happen that
selru'a becomes the standard word for a scientific
method type of hypothesis. I don't see why not.

> To improve upon Lamont's original (whether by
> eliminating this anachronism or in other ways)
> would IMO be unethical.
>
> Wouldn't it?

Unethical seems a bit strong of a word. But
as Italians say: traduttore traditore. That's an
inescapable law of translation.

co'o mi'e xorxes