Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 23901 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2006 17:13:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2006 17:13:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2006 17:13:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM6tp-00087j-Tk for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:13:34 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM6t8-000864-9o; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:52 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM6si-00085q-Ro for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:25 -0800 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM6sg-00085i-DR for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:24 -0800 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i11so234020nzh for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.227.41 with SMTP id z41mr1674861nzg; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.20.27 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:12:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:12:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060322165138.80573.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17671_32474494.1143047540470" References: <20060322165138.80573.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 11220 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Matt Arnold" From: "Matt Arnold" Reply-To: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A comment on one of my jboselkei translations X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=R27bv1NcTYeI4sqFPQoVMOMrgHnM8yuQtXNEDizkg5AkRjJUqg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25630 Content-Length: 3915 Lines: 94 ------=_Part_17671_32474494.1143047540470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/22/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > Isn't that the definition of malglico? Not in the slightest. Just because it is permissible to leave out tense, that doesn't mean the resulting vagueness and lack of information is preferable and more Lojbanic. The resulting translation would not only be valid, it would also possess more of the information the original speaker intended to get across. I don't think a faithful translator is in the business of telling the person who they're translating what they are allowe= d to intend. -Matt --- Matt Arnold wrote: > > > On 3/22/06, Pierre Abbat > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I also didn't think that a past tense tag > > was necessary because of the > > > {ca > > > > le cabycerni} tense sumti. Am I wrong? > > > > > > It isn't necessary. It isn't necessary even > > without it; tense is optional > > > in > > > Lojban. > > > > > > > Tense is optional in texts written originally > > in Lojban, but the English to > > be translated was asking for it. > > -epkat > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.or= g > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > ------=_Part_17671_32474494.1143047540470 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/22/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote= :
Isn't that the definition of malglico?

Not in the slig= htest. Just because it is permissible to leave out tense, that doesn't mean= the resulting vagueness and lack of information is preferable and more Loj= banic. The resulting translation would not only be valid, it would also pos= sess more of the information the original speaker intended to get across. I= don't think a faithful translator is in the business of telling the person= who they're translating what they are allowed to intend.
-Matt

--- Matt Arnold <matt.ma= ttarn@gmail.com > wrote:

> On 3/22/06, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
> wrote:
> ><= br>> >
> > > I also didn't think that a past tense tag > was necessary because of the
> > {ca
> > > le cab= ycerni} tense sumti. Am I wrong?
> >
> > It isn't necessa= ry. It isn't necessary even
> without it; tense is optional
> &= gt; in
> > Lojban.
> >
>
> Tense is optional in tex= ts written originally
> in Lojban, but the English to
> be tran= slated was asking for it.
> -epkat
>



To unsubscr= ibe from this list, send mail to=20 lojban-list-request@lojba= n.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really st= uck, send mail to=20 secretary@lojban.org for help.<= br>

------=_Part_17671_32474494.1143047540470--