From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Mar 01 18:33:46 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JVe1K-0006gs-1d for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:33:46 -0800 Received: from web62504.mail.re1.yahoo.com ([69.147.75.96]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JVe1F-0006fo-JD for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:33:45 -0800 Received: (qmail 27732 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Mar 2008 02:33:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=EAz3B9P7MC9G1s/1wWQM5M0iQcuo3mkFtlfY92iaYtP1nfhYPzMFgODrN0VixJM/UTZdDsa8A2FwutpLQSds9nPrSYqnNsnQC32hNjJA3r8Monjail2an6/Poqm3EkIEY0SEQCWKvB49lWEo5KaM0qEpEO1926M7q7neBEvUR4Q=; X-YMail-OSG: 8BAPL8gVM1mZIeuWZtvt0pMxzz2LG4._ydfnGTv1.ghV.5wC4fFWgKFAfITxtzOVsw-- Received: from [63.24.28.51] by web62504.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:33:34 PST Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:33:34 -0800 (PST) From: Liam Dalton Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: la jufra karni To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20080301202720.GA30441@grendel.dealloc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-648203788-1204425214=:27142" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <680544.27142.qm@web62504.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 395 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: iamdalto@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0-648203788-1204425214=:27142 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit .oiro'a I misremembered it. Rather than: If a man's brains were in his heels, were he not in danger of kibes? it is If a man's brains were in's heels, were't not in danger of kibes? Which means that it's meaning must be somewhat different, something like .i lo nu da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo ri jmati'e cu te ckape ru lo jmarixmlixai .iepei Yes, different to accomadate a sumti only slightly further back. Does this sound good? mublin wrote: On Friday 29 February 2008 23:35, Liam Dalton wrote: > da'i lo nu le besna po nanmu cu nenri jufti'e gi te ckape lo > jufti'emlixai? On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > The sentence should begin {ganai da'i} On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 01:16:34PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > ge da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo jmati'e gi xu te ckape lo > jmarixmlixai I don't see the need for a logical connective here, because ckape already has a place for the conditions under which something is dangerous. Liam's original translation probably wanted to use this place too, as it has the form {lonu broda cu te ckape...}. Also IMHO the question is rhetoric, maybe an attitudinal is more appropriate here than xu? I'd propose the following translation: .i lo nu da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo ri jmati'e cu te ckape ra lo jmarixmlixai .iepei The hypothetical event of a brain of a human being being inside her heels is a perilous condition for her, potentially causing kibes, do you agree? Under the condition that a human's brain were inside her heels, would she not be in danger of kibes? As to the {ganai da'i...gi}, I would like to add the following two thoughts to xorxes' comment: 1. {ganai...gi} "Either not-A or B" is rarely a correct analysis of English "if A then B". In this particular case, the bridi is trivially true, because the antecedent "A man's brain is in his heels" is false. 2. {ganai da'i} in this construction seems to do the wrong thing: It assumes that a man's brain is NOT in his heels {ga da'i lo besna na nenri lo jmati'e gi...}. We should be assuming the exact opposite. -- mu'o mi'e mublin. --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. --0-648203788-1204425214=:27142 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

.oiro'a I misremembered it. Rather than:
If a man's brains were in his heels, were he not in danger of kibes?
it is
If a man's brains were in's heels, were't not in danger of kibes?
Which means that it's meaning must be somewhat different, something like
 
.i lo nu da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo ri jmati'e cu te ckape
   ru lo jmarixmlixai .iepei
Yes, different to accomadate a sumti only slightly further back.
Does this sound good?

mublin <mublin@dealloc.org> wrote:
On Friday 29 February 2008 23:35, Liam Dalton wrote:
> da'i lo nu le besna po nanmu cu nenri jufti'e gi te ckape lo
> jufti'emlixai?

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> The sentence should begin {ganai da'i}

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 01:16:34PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> ge da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo jmati'e gi xu te ckape lo
> jmarixmlixai

I don't see the need for a logical connective here, because ckape
already has a place for the conditions under which something is
dangerous. Liam's original translation probably wanted to use this
place too, as it has the form {lonu broda cu te ckape...}.

Also IMHO the question is rhetoric, maybe an attitudinal is more
appropriate here than xu?

I'd propose the following translation:

.i lo nu da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo ri jmati'e cu te ckape
ra lo jmarixmlixai .iepei

The hypothetical event of a brain of a human being being inside her
heels is a perilous condition for her, potentially causing kibes,
do you agree?

Under the condition that a human's brain were inside her heels,
would she not be in danger of kibes?

As to the {ganai da'i...gi}, I would like to add the following two
thoughts to xorxes' comment:

1. {ganai...gi} "Either not-A or B" is rarely a correct analysis of
English "if A then B". In this particular case, the bridi is trivially
true, because the antecedent "A man's brain is in his heels" is false.

2. {ganai da'i} in this construction seems to do the wrong thing: It
assumes that a man's brain is NOT in his heels {ga da'i lo besna na
nenri lo jmati'e gi...}. We should be assuming the exact opposite.

--
mu'o mi'e mublin.




Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. --0-648203788-1204425214=:27142--