From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:58:48 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 27031 invoked from network); 23 Dec 1996 16:46:47 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 23 Dec 1996 16:46:47 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <14.B88D4FBF@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:46:42 +0100
Date:         Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:59:25 GMT
Reply-To:     Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: PLI: zoigy. unless .gy. xelfanva lu secau
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1914
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <MOgyZVjavbF.A.Z9B.o60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

>>ni'o la xorxes. pu fanva lu secau li'u fuzoigy. unless .gy.

>i ienai i mi pu fanva pa valsi na.e lo jufra

.i .ie .iku'i lo se valsi befila .inglic. so'imei

>The sentence
>I was translating was something like:
>
>        Your seeking is useless unless you know the mystery.
>
>which I think is close enough in meaning to:
>
>        Your seeking without knowing the mystery is useless.

Or even:
         Your seeking and knowing not the mystery is useless.
         .i lenu do sisku gi'enai djuno filo naletrju'o cu selfli

but this misses the point that the not knowing causes the seeking to fail.  It
says simply that that the seeking failed while not the mystery was not known.

>Your translation was:
>
>        lenu sisku na sidju ki'u lenu na'e djuno filo nalterju'o
>
>which means something like: "It is not the case that: seeking is helpful
>because the mystery is unknown."

My translation was:

    do djuno ledu'u lenu sisku jo'u camdji kei na snada
           ki'u lenu djuno filo nalterju'o

The "kei" scopes the "na" to the same level as the "ki'u".  The failure is
caused by the not knowing.

>I think you meant {na} not to have scope
>over {ki'u}, but it does. I guess you could say something like:
>
>      le nu sisku cu na'e sidju ki'u le nu na'e djuno fi lo nalterju'o

>In any case, I would probably say:
>
>        i mi klama le banxa va'o le nu do na dunda lo jdini mi
>        I will go to the bank if you don't give me money

Why not "ki'u"?  You state the conditions under which you go to the bank, but
not the fact that the conditions are the reason for going.

         I will go to the bank because you don't give me money.

>I propose the use of {va'onai} as a general translation for "unless":

I do not believe there is a single mapping for "unless", there are times when
it need not be causal and your rule is true.  At other times more needs
to be stated.

ni'o co'omi'e dn.