From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 30 13:43:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 20:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 39833 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 20:42:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 20:42:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 20:42:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.3a.15b87efa (3757) for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.15b87efa.2846b519@aol.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:42:01 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3a.15b87efa.2846b519_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7381 --part1_3a.15b87efa.2846b519_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 2:45:00 PM Central Daylight Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: (I tactfully will not mention how many copies of this I received) > > Well, the formula looks to be negative ("la"), and the usual trat is > "There > > is no God but Allah" so it might literally be {no da poi na du la .allax. > cu > > cevni}, which, unfortunately, allows for atheism, so it is not right > either > > -- for so does the cowan's version. As I was saying about quantifiers, ... > > no da poi na dunli la .alsax. du lo pa cevni > > "allah" turns out to be really hard to lojbanize. 'll' is illegal, as > is 'la'. > But {dunli} ain't {du}, two distinct things can be dunli in all sorts of terdunli but still be two distinct things. So this allows two equal gods -- or more -- as well as none and one. Time for doing to Arabic what we have done to Chinese -- but do we have a native Arabic speaker? I know we have some pros. I incline to {alxax} just because it sounds Arabic, but that is stereotypy and ignorance and who knows what it might turn out to mean. {alex}? --part1_3a.15b87efa.2846b519_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 2:45:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:
(I tactfully will not mention how many copies of this I received)

> Well, the formula looks to be negative ("la"), and the usual trat is
"There
> is no God but Allah" so it might literally be {no da poi na du la .allax.
cu
> cevni}, which, unfortunately, allows for atheism, so it is not right
either
> -- for so does the cowan's version. As I was saying about quantifiers, ...

no da poi na dunli la .alsax. du lo pa cevni

"allah" turns out to be really hard to lojbanize.  'll' is illegal, as
is 'la'.

But {dunli} ain't {du}, two distinct things can be dunli in all sorts of
terdunli but still be two distinct things.  So this allows two equal gods --
or more -- as well as none and one.  
Time for doing to Arabic what we have done to Chinese -- but do we have a
native Arabic speaker?  I know we have some pros.  I incline to {alxax} just
because it sounds Arabic, but that is stereotypy and ignorance and who knows
what it might turn out to mean.  {alex}?   --part1_3a.15b87efa.2846b519_boundary--