From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 22 16:48:15 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E7M1X-0005zn-Cm
	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:48:15 -0700
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E7M1X-0005zg-3b
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:48:15 -0700
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:48:15 -0700
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: threats
Message-ID: <20050822234815.GZ408@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <42FD4FB0.9050105@handgranat.org> <925d1756050813134458aa98d1@mail.gmail.com> <42FE6540.5030900@handgranat.org> <925d175605081406585e67f535@mail.gmail.com> <20050814143749.GG20034@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42FF6486.1080600@handgranat.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42FF6486.1080600@handgranat.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 1830
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 05:34:30PM +0200, Sunnan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:58:38AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>On 8/13/05, Sunnan <sunnan@handgranat.org> wrote:
> >>   
> >>
> >>>Much better, thanks! I've changed it to {ija} on the page, but
> >>>let me rephrase the question: is a boolean a good way to
> >>>express a threat? Is {ko smaji .ija mi cecla fa'a do} a
> >>>reasonable sentence?
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>I always get the feeling that something is missing here, because
> >>there is no causality implied between the two sentences, but I
> >>don't really have anything better to suggest at this point,
> >>so...
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >ko smaji .i mi mu'i lo nu na go'i cu cecla fa'a do
> > 
> >
> Nice, elegant solution. Would making that {.i} into a boolean be
> better, or unnecessary? 

"mu'i" asserts a causal relationship.  Booleans do not, so they are
bad for this sort of thing.

I should have had a "da'i" in there, though.  Opps.  A future tense
tag would also be nice.  Ooops.

ko smaji .i da'i mi mu'i lo nu na go'i ba cecla fa'a do

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/