From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 30 22:19:41 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MtE4r-0007GW-9U for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:41 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MtE4m-0007Fy-8b for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:41 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so7154566ewy.0 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DvuNhuKZ/9QpI++dThH97h1/ZJU+I7Jy7jHNkqbVg7Q=; b=ToxMJ5NtWKpMbbTlABWOg/AYHSJjEoWNjZhplg51otOq6FCh4x9/XP9o9EptVdHBom SXlYNGhl2AvTAuLypuWPIWBg6uIcMDRE91Mj/y6xrmLF4r7i8UyfEmBbAjdllDgMQM1W rWJnnVTp0orJNbWYOyJmSvvDEUWXvWInQgX7Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=r0SWHJ1IVCBuBRiZFq2fbXANYFfea8lRBivQkh8g/W4oqJrFjd1qObQKA+LmBw5+6R tw2WPgtz8Nr5BDTs14ng0EE1GUWHSKMKPXQTC0kTB1vrMYr+47q7MKEFZI1xxZBH3o6C KnRFt4LTtvYVUY4iE25p/EQ8sxxUO4sAbb6rw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.156.19 with SMTP id i19mr7173912ebo.79.1254374369933; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560909301432s5c2e67ebu939015b35194f0f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <16d9defd0909301348o30bb27d4x55540b2192f1eb7d@mail.gmail.com> <4AC3C59A.7040102@kli.org> <925d17560909301432s5c2e67ebu939015b35194f0f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:29 -0700 Message-ID: <16d9defd0909302219p592f1504k85f6c06d8a2f72ef@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: How to reduce the amount of something? From: chris kerr To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502d28ebc39500474d8cac7 X-archive-position: 16287 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: letsclimbhigher@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --00504502d28ebc39500474d8cac7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ki'e I noticed few things missing. So along with those suggestions it would now be: .i ga'i djica lo nu ma'a nitcu lo za'i lo mergu'e ga mutce jdika lo ri ni ratske xarci gi mutce zenba jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci Is that a pretty good translation? Anyone else with input? mu'o mi'e .codrus. 2009/9/30 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > On 09/30/2009 04:48 PM, chris kerr wrote: > >> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of: > >> > >> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially > >> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially > >> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons > arsenal. > >> > >> I came up with: .i xusra lo du'u ma'a nitcu lo nu lo mergu'e ga jdika > >> lo ni ri ratske xarci ku gi jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci > > (I suggest "jdice" rather than "xusra" for "resolve". Also, if "ri" is > "lo mergu'e", you want "te xarci", the extent to which the US is > nuclear-weaponed, not the extent to which the US is a nuclear weapon. > Or maybe you wanted to say "lo ri ni".) > > >> But there is something not right with using {ni} to talk about reducin= g > >> the number of nuclear weapons. > > > > Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any > > abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to > > some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)? I seem to recall that {ni= } > > and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in > > extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}. > > I don't think this was ever settled one way or the other. The > definition seems to say "ni" is a se klani, but mostly it is used as a > klani. I use it to mean "the extent to which (bridi) is true". For > "whether" I always use "lo du'u xu kau" rather than "lo jei". > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.or= g > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > --00504502d28ebc39500474d8cac7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ki'e

I noticed few things missing.=A0 So along with those sugges= tions it would now be:

.i ga'i djica lo nu ma'a nitcu lo za&= #39;i lo mergu'e ga mutce jdika lo ri ni ratske xarci gi mutce zenba ji= tro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci

Is=A0 that a pretty good translation?=A0 Anyone else with input?
mu'o mi'e .codrus.

2009/9/30 Jor= ge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 04:48 PM, chris kerr wrote:
>> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of:
>>
>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantiall= y
>> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantial= ly
>> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapon= s arsenal.
>>
>> I came up with: =A0.i xusra lo du'u ma'a nitcu lo nu lo me= rgu'e ga jdika
>> lo ni ri ratske xarci ku gi jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske x= arci

(I suggest "jdice" rather than "xusra" for "= resolve". Also, if "ri" is
"lo mergu'e", you want "te xarci", the extent to wh= ich the US is
nuclear-weaponed, not the extent to which the US is a nuclear weapon.
Or maybe you wanted to say "lo ri ni".)

>> But there is something not right with using {ni} to talk about red= ucing
>> the number of nuclear weapons.
>
> Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or = any
> abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to<= br> > some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)? =A0I seem to recall t= hat {ni}
> and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in<= br> > extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.

I don't think this was ever settled one way or the other. The
definition seems to say "ni" is a se klani, but mostly it is used= as a
klani. I use it to mean "the extent to which (bridi) is true". Fo= r
"whether" I always use "lo du'u xu kau" rather than= "lo jei".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


--00504502d28ebc39500474d8cac7-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.