From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 18 00:06:05 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3461 ; Sun, 18 Jun 95 00:06:03 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sun, 18 Jun 95 22:13:44 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa10607; 18 Jun 95 23:13 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8053; Sun, 18 Jun 95 18:11:21 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5539; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 18:11:21 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 16:11:28 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Another question about imperatives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506182313.aa10607@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >I think the dates should be inside of the se bilga, because they give the >time that the prescription should be made, not the time of the obligation. >(Also, the connective should be {e} instead of {gi'e}.) I wasn't sure about that -- I thought .e connected two sumti within the context of a particular place, rather than conjoining the places themselves. I.e. you could say "ne'i le botpi .e le tanxe" for "in the bottle and also in the box" but not "ne'i le botpi .e ne'i le tanxe". Or can you do both? >> .i secau le nalylogji prenu loi cteki cu na zasti > >i ienai i naku piro loi nu cteki cu racli i ku'i pisu'o ri ja'a go'i .i pe'i na go'i .i cu'u le'e nuncteki sarji loi nu cteki cu se krinu ledu'u le'e turni le'e pamei prenu cu zmadu leka racli pilno le jdini .i da'i la'edi'u jetnu .inaja loi nu cteki cu se krinu le po'o kamnalracli >> .i >> (to paunai le te cteki gi'i le ve cteki cu nalylogji .i la'edi'u te jinvi toi) > >i va'o lo prane munje lei te cteki lei ve cteki cu mintu .i cinri .i da'i do pu cusku lu le te cteki le ve cteki cu mintu li'u .inaja na cumki ki'u ledu'u le jdini cu na muvdu .i ku'i do cusku le frica pe tu'a zo lei .i ku'i pe'i lei te cteki goi ty. na ka'e logji mintu lei ve cteki goi vy. .i ne'i lo'e gubnyturni vy. cu su'opimu loi seltru .i ty. cu piro loi seltru .i da'i piro loi seltru cu sarji le cteki .inaja cteki naje seldunda .i lo'enu cteki cu flalu .i lo'e flalu cu na sarcu secau lo'e zerpre .i da'i na zasti fa so'epa cteki nalpleji zerpre .inaja le cteki cu na jetnu cteki (to mi casnu maugi lo smuni be zo cteki gi lo se ckaji be loi remna toi) >> zo'onai, though, pe'i contracts, laws, and judicial decisions might be >> particularly good tests of Lojban because they often use precise wording and >> attempt to be logical, exhaustive, and without loopholes. > >On the contrary, Lojban is excelent in providing loopholes. Almost >any sentence can be logically interpreted as the opposite of what was >intended if you are creative in the interpretation of what's left >unstated. Actually, I rented an apartment for a couple months in downtown Kukbraun (the capital city of Lojbanistan). It was interesting reading over the rental agreement because the lojbani lawyers have an unusual style of writing. They fill in all places, and never use "zo'e". For sumti they use either veridicials or explicitly defined anaphora with goi, or cmene; the only time you'll see "le" is when it's defined by goi ("la kris bogart goi le xabju...") They tend to use prenexes a lot; which aren't strictly necessary but it gives the contract a sort of intellectual air which helps justify their fees. They also have some specialized lujvo they use. But all in all it's closer to colloquial klaji lojban than English Legalese is to regular English. (Unfortunately I didn't stay long in Kukbraun; I got fired from the coffee shop I was working at for speaking metaphorically to the customers :-) ) ____ Chris Bogart \ / ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html Quetzal Consulting \/ cbogart@quetzal.com