From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 10:38:57 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 17 Jun 2001 17:38:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 23105 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2001 17:38:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jun 2001 17:38:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2001 17:38:56 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com
Received: from [10.1.2.11] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jun 2001 17:38:56 -0000
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:38:54 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Sentence translation
Message-ID: <9gipve+tl32@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010617103406.A5918@twcny.rr.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1686
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 200.69.11.0
From: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8107


la rab di'e cusku

> Well, I think that would be one situation where it's okay to lie, 
but here's a
> version of the sentence which leaves open the possibility that he 
gets off the
> car and the speaker hits him with the bat anyway:
> 
> .i ko co'u zutse lo mi karce .ija mi porpi ledo stedu pi'o levi 
barda grana
> 
> "Stop sitting on my car, or I break your head with this large 
stick. Or both."

I think the three possibilities can work:

i do co'u zutse le mi karce ijonai mi popygau le do stedu sepi'o
le vi barda grana
"Either you stop sitting on my car or I break your head..."

i do co'u zutse le mi karce ija mi popygau le do stedu sepi'o
le vi barda grana
"If you don't stop sitting on my car, I break your head..."

i do co'u zutse le mi karce inajanai mi popygau le do stedu sepi'o
le vi barda grana
"If you stop sitting on my car, I don't break your head..."

Which one is more effective depends more on your credibility
and capacity to carry out the explicit or implied threat. I find
the last one the most effective, as it leaves me at freedom as
to what to do in case you don't stop sitting on my car. Why should
you restrict your possibilities?

In any case, what I find most objectionable is using {ko} there
instead of {do}. What exactly is the command? Whatever {do} does,
the statement will be true anyway, or in any case it will be up
to you to make it true, so it is a promise/threat, not a command.

Unless you are interpreting it as both a command and a threat,
i.e. a blend of {ko co'u zutse le mi karce} and {do co'u zutse 
le mi karce ijonai mi popygau le do stedu sepi'o le vi barda 
grana}. But can it be both?

mu'o mi'e xorxes