Re: LUNATIC again
|From:||Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 22:30|
Charles wrote :
> I think this all supports the (in-?)famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
> that a language shapes (does not just express) thoughts.
> I thought that was the intent of Lojban, to explore different
> ways of thinking, rather than claiming to be the One True Faith.
Well, Charles, my post may have been too vehement - as always. We understand that
Bob regards *lion* as hold two transitions between paired concepts : (i) from
individual towards collectivity and (ii) from collectivity towards individual
(= identity towards essence and reversely). But doing so I can guess (very
clearly) that *plural* is set aside as an avatar of unit. Am I wrong, Bob ?
Now that's exactly the same issue as for *embedded* subclauses that David
mentioned. Is *embedded subclause* an *incident* within the *main* clause ? Or
is the *main* clause the stand of the incidence ? :-) I look beyond with
child's eyes : two clauses cross each other and one is head and the other is
tail. Order itself is a concept. The head of the subclause is so elected
because it has some common point in both clauses. Or reversely. Unless this
argument is the true predicate of the clause made of both clauses ;-) No
hierarchy among the cards. No trump. Nothing to dis-card ;-) The best conlang
to ponder on these magics is on the Scattered Tongue Webring. I look for its
URL and post it as soon as I can : *pen* is translated there as an agent like
*something looking as a pen*.
I would rather suggest : *something mistaken for a pen* because then you would
know you're right when you're wrong :-)
TIAJIDMI (this is a joke; I don't mean it)
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=18213
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/