tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 14 16:34:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: nuqjatlh
jatlh skywaltzer:
>In a message dated 97-03-12 03:07:22 EST, [email protected] writes:
>
><< Your sentence isn't a sentence, so it doesn't refer to itself, and thus is
> not paradoxical, but simply nonsense. >>
>
> A sentence doesn't have to refer to itself (or even be a sentence) in order
>to have a parodox:
>
>THE NEXT SENTENCE IS TRUE.
>THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS FALSE.
cha' mu'tlhegh tu'lu', HISlaH? cha'Hu' jabbI'IDwIj vIlabbogh DalaDta'chugh,
<*vItna'> jIjatlh 'e' vIHechpu', 'e' DaSov. 'ej, "paradox" 'oH wa'
mu'tlhegh neH'e'. *vItna' 'oHlaHbe' mu'tlheghvetlh'e' 'e' vIta' neH
[because it needs to refer to something which affirms it, in this case
itself]. 'ej paq Dajqu' DalaD DaneHchugh, "G�del, Escher, Bach" Danej.
"paradox"mey DatIvchugh, paqvetlh DaparHa'qu'.
-HurghwI'