[lojban-beginners] Re: la jufra karni

[mublin <mublin@dealloc.org>]

On Friday 29 February 2008 23:35, Liam Dalton wrote:
> da'i lo nu le besna po nanmu cu nenri jufti'e gi te ckape lo
> jufti'emlixai?

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> The sentence should begin {ganai da'i}

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 01:16:34PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> ge da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo jmati'e gi xu te ckape lo
> jmarixmlixai

I don't see the need for a logical connective here, because ckape
already has a place for the conditions under which something is
dangerous. Liam's original translation probably wanted to use this
place too, as it has the form {lonu broda cu te ckape...}.

Also IMHO the question is rhetoric, maybe an attitudinal is more
appropriate here than xu?

I'd propose the following translation:

.i lo nu da'i lo besna be lo remna cu nenri lo ri jmati'e cu te ckape
   ra lo jmarixmlixai .iepei

   The hypothetical event of a brain of a human being being inside her
   heels is a perilous condition for her, potentially causing kibes,
   do you agree?

   Under the condition that a human's brain were inside her heels,
   would she not be in danger of kibes?

As to the {ganai da'i...gi}, I would like to add the following two
thoughts to xorxes' comment: 

1. {ganai...gi} "Either not-A or B" is rarely a correct analysis of
English "if A then B". In this particular case, the bridi is trivially
true, because the antecedent "A man's brain is in his heels" is false.

2. {ganai da'i} in this construction seems to do the wrong thing: It
assumes that a man's brain is NOT in his heels {ga da'i lo besna na
nenri lo jmati'e gi...}. We should be assuming the exact opposite.

--
mu'o mi'e mublin.