From @FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Mon Mar  8 17:18:17 2010
Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0ozVZw-0000PYC; Tue, 16 Nov 93 20:56 EET
Message-Id: <m0ozVZw-0000PYC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 8948; Tue, 16 Nov 93 20:56:47 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8945; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 20:56:36 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5632; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 19:55:31 +0100
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1993 18:23:30 GMT
Reply-To:     Colin Fine <C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Colin Fine <C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: This Is the Title of This Story...
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1885
Lines: 62

doi nik

mi ba'o binxo le sanji be la'e di'e
.i tu'e mi so'e roi te pinka lo
lojbo selci'u na gi'a mo'u tcidu ri
.i ku'i mi so'i roi fliba lo nu mo'u tcidu ra
.i se ni'i bo mi so'u roi .u'u te pinka ru
.i tu'u

.i ca ku mi te pinka le do xelfanva gi'u
mo'unai tcidu ri

I've tried writing the next bit in Lojban, and I'm
not sure I can express it clearly, so it's in
English.

1. You say
 .i dei notci fo do
   fau lenu do punai sanji lenu no'a kei kei
   fe lenu le me dei cu sevra'a lisri
      gi'e va'i vasru loi jufra noi srana leke'a stura jo'u terpli
This is a relationship between the sentence, the
reader, the information, and the event of the reader's
not already being aware of it. In the case that the
reader is not indeed aware of it, there is no problem:
the relationship is one of being a message, and it all
works.
But I am not sure that this works if the event is
counterfactual. I think that the following reasoning then
applies:

no da nu do punai sanji li'o
.i se ni'i bo de'u notci fo do fau no da fe zo'e
.i se ni'i bo na ku de'u notci fo do fau da fe zo'e
.i se ni'i bo de'u na notci

which is not, I suggest, what you want.

I suggest that there is an 'inform' (=galfi fi lo sanji)
that is indeed 'fau zo'e', but the 'notci' is not.

Guessing that the English said something like 'in case you
did not already realise', I would say:
.i dei notci fo do
 mu'i le nu do ju'ocu'i punai sanji li'o kei
 li'o

2. va'i vasru loi jufra noi srana leke'a stura jo'u terpli
I find 'vasru loi jufra' strange -'selpau' would be better.
I think you mean 'poi' rather than 'noi', otherwise it's
truth equivalent to 'vasru loi jufra' which is hardly
remarkable.

3. .i dei cnino jarco le ralju xeldraci be fi le lisri be'o
   poi nanla zi'eneme'e zo bilis.

Contrariwise, I would expect 'noi' rather than 'poi'.
I like 'zi'e ne me'e'.

That's as far as I've got.

        Colin