Re: CHAT: OT CHAT: Pascal's Wager

i read this post this morning and couldn't resist the challenge :-)
no interlinear here because i doubt anyone would care. i still think it's useful
to take up such challenge to show that conlangs may feature enough grammar and
vocabulary and conlangers master them enough to translate or write abstract
texts. Tunu already has all concepts needed to translate the text below---no new
word coined but i couldn't make up my mind on *which* vocabulary to use: for
instance |numi| means "think",  |homa| means "think something to be such without
a specific clue", |halu| means "infer from a clue", etc. i kept Tim's impetuous
flow of ideas as unchanged as possible although Tunu would rather isolate
different ideas into different sentences. i still had to disambiguate the vague
english pronouns "this", "it", "which", etc. Tunu also turns english phrases
like "to believe God's high probability of existence" into phrases like "to
believe that the (following) fact that God exists has a high rate of chance".

Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:
>>>
This really has no relevence to conlanging now, but if anyone can
translate my paragraphs above into a conlang, I'll be very impressed.
>>>
Well, sure, although it kind of ignores the rest of what I said. Anyway, that's
a fairly accurate portrayal of the situation, but I dan't think it's what Pascal
meant (I confess I've never read his original argument, only various
recapitulations of it).  As I understand it, the original wager involves betting
that there either is, or is not a God, and he points out that (for a certain set
of circumstances) it makes sense probabilistically to bet that there is (see the
other part of my original post).  I don't think it takes multiple religions into
account (not that it would matter, as long as you assume that the afterlife
isn't worse for members of any religion
than it is for atheists, which probably seemed more reasonable to Pascal than it
does to me). Note, anyway, I'm not suggesting that Pascal's conclusion applies
in
reverse, which would mean you're better off betting there is not a God, no
matter how high a probability you assign to His existence.  I think you're best
of going with whatever you think is most likely, based on your interpretation of
the evidence.  (Which is what everyone does, anyhow, or thinks they do.)  You
might weigh them according to the possibility of an infinite reward in the
afterlife, but this depends on your idea of the most probable means used by God
(if he exists) to assign rewards to the dead.
<<<
Kame apima uyataipangache hela kama ikami atoli chakanyang. Kame ataichiti pilu
pihi wamata nete wikami akela maihoma ikame alaikama iPascal atoli tainimeng
(wikami ataihali ikami akela chama toli hapu temu heli yokama ayupiku napa
temutemu chopeng.) Kami apailuma iPascal ukali ataitota mali time kule Tana
wiPascal ataitile itota mali iTana amaikule ayachuka mainimi omaho mali waukune
kote mitumitu (pula ikite tingipi nopa mele kami yakali.) Kami akela homa itota
mali yakame apaitule kana huno tana (wikame amongona watumi pilu ikamu apano
taihalu ipehi pame pengehi akela chuka lingiha emuli kungune huno tana umeki
etaka nangati kule tana wiPascal achuka paimehu kame awamaimala mali ayumeki
ikami apai.) Uhali kame aipula ipaitile ikami akela taichipa kamo iPascal
ataikitu wakame kita ayachokinya taitecha ikamu amoli taitota iTana akela
maikule upangache kamo itime iTana akule ayamaimali yapani mala. Kami ahoma
ikamu amoli hailana kune maho ikamu ataimehunya tomo mala mali omaho kama ikamu
ahomanyo chipachipa. (Uketa pilu aikami ahoma iketa tataka amaikame heme wapelo
kakama ahoma mai.) Kamu apone taimeti kame chipachipa walana imeli yupame
pengehi ayapone aningihe wikame amaikope kamo ikamu ataihalu iTana ataimelinye
tataka pengehi owapani tama (upilu i Tana akule.)

Mathias
http://takatunu.free.fr/tunugram.htm

Reply