From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 18 00:05:46 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3457 ; Sun, 18 Jun 95 00:05:44 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sun, 18 Jun 95 15:58:03 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa17737; 18 Jun 95 16:57 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7376; Sun, 18 Jun 95 11:55:30 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9257; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 11:54:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 11:39:29 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: Another question about imperatives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506181657.aa17737@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la kris cusku di'e > >Not later than December 15 of 1993, and each subsequent calendar year, > >the Secretary shall prescribe tables which shall apply in lieu of the > >tables contained in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) with respect > >to taxable years beginning in the succeeding calendar year. > > How about using "bilga" for "shall": > > pu le detri pe li 15:12:1993 ku gi'e ca ro nanca poi balvi ri ku la > sekryteris. cu bilga lenu finti lo liste poi basti le liste be fi'o selpau > .abu joi by. joi cy. joi dy. joi .ebu bei seki'i ro balvi ke cteki nanca be'o 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}.) le jitro cu bilga lenu pu le se detri be li 15:12:1993 be'o e ca ro nanca poi balvi ri finti loi liste poi basti lei liste poi se vasru lei pagbu po'u .abu joi by. joi cy. joi dy. joi .ebu ku le se lidne ke cteki nanca > [whew; I really got bogged down there -- I realize it's not a very complete > translation. But why bother, because...] > > >Or are there no taxes in Lojland? > > .i go'i .ui .i .a'o zo'oru'e lenu pilno la lojban cu galfi le nalylogji > prenu le logji prenu i iacu'i i le ka nalylogji cu jinzi lo'e remna > .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 > (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 > 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. Jorge