Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 13:29:57 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 13:29:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199311161829.AA02154@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7084; Tue, 16 Nov 93 13:29:30 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3909; Tue, 16 Nov 93 13:28:30 EDT Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 18:23:30 GMT Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: TEXT: This Is the Title of This Story... To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 16 18:23:30 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET 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