Although some of the English = is a little awkward, it's for a more literal translation; the meaning is st= ill there. The thing I find odd is that in all of the {broda "by standard" = lo nu brode}, {brode .i se ki'u broda}, or at the very least {lo jai brode = cu jibni lo jai broda} -- either way, the more true the abstraction bridi, = the more support for the overall selbri. All except dukse. It's the only on= e for which a more true abstraction supports the overall bridi less.

So, my question is, is the "by standard= " abstraction merely establishing a scale for which the direction is irrele= vant, (for which I would be able to write all of my earlier jufra properly = without {na},) or is the direction of the established scale supposed to ali= gn positively with the accuracy of the mane= bridi? (for which the dukse example above would require a {na})

As a last bit as to why I think this is a comin= g-from-English issue, note that one of the translations was

"It i= s too heavy to carry."

which is supposed to help assert that the = abstraction is "to carry" not, "to not carry" -- but this is a purely Engli= sh argument. Once I look at Lojban translations side-by-side, it doesn't li= ne up.

Also, I've been trying to argue that either= there is a discrepancy or it shouldn't matter -- either the standard shoul= d line up in the same direction, or it can go whichever way along the same = axis. Up until this bit

.i ku'i py na du= kse lo ka tilju kei lo nu catke

I was totally in favor= of consistently forcing the standard to be in the same direction. However,= that reminded me of how terribly obnoxious it woul= d be if any time you wanted to {na}gate the mane bridi you had to {na}gate the abstraction. (Note how suddenly being a= ble to push the piano supports that it is not too heavy.) Plus, (not for la= ck of trying,) I have yet to imagine a case where the actual correlation wo= uld be unclear with context. So, that really makes me want to look at this = as the abstraction bridi can go either direction, and the relationship with= the mane bridi is context-sensitive. (For = instance, if the speaker who presented {lo pipno c= u banli lo ka melbi kei lo nu na fusra} was somep= ony who considered decay a beautiful thing, the piano would be dec= ayed in such a way as to make it obvious what was intended.)

Sorry if that was way too long-winded, but I would = really like to know if something in my thought process was crucially wrong.=

mu'o mi'e djos.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/sv= F492JbXsYJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_1546_25934792.1342189933814--