From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sat Nov 20 09:52:53 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:52:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CVZPc-0007ci-4f
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:52:40 -0800
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:52:40 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Empasizing an entire structure in forethought?
Message-ID: <20041120175240.GR28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20041120170146.GN28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <200411201220.30286.phma@phma.hn.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200411201220.30286.phma@phma.hn.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 9018
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:20:30PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Saturday 20 November 2004 12:01, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On IRC, I had cause to translate "Do not be to quick to deal in
> > death and judgement.  Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
> >
> > I (eventually) came up with:
> >
> > .i ko na duske lo nu sutra gasnu lo nu morsi gi'e pajni .i lo
> > mutce prije na kakne lo nu djuno ro nu fanmo
> >
> > I had a lot of trouble with "even", however.
> >
> > Apparently, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=even, even
> > in this case is just empasis, which I can accept.  What I'm
> > unclear on is how to emphasize all of "lo mutce prije" in
> > forethough.  I mean, {lo ba'e mutce ba'e prije} works, but it's
> > a bit unsatisfying.
> >
> > Suggestions?
> 
> Isn't "even" in this sense {ji'asai}? So you could say {lo ji'asai
> mutce prije}.

I don't think so.  Arnt said (in IRC):

    You're implicitly creating a scale from the wisest to the
    dumbest, and saying  that the wise cannot see all ends, so
    therefore everyone who is less wise can't see it either.                                                                               

    And consequently, the one who the phrase is directed at, cannot
    in all probability expect to see all ends either.                                            

I think that's the heart of the matter.

I guess you're saying that that means "in addition to you, the very
wise cannot..."?

-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/