[lojban-beginners] Re: All animals are equal...

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 1/9/06, HeliodoR <exitconsole@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd translate the first part as {lo ro danlu cu dunsi'u}, i.e.
> > "all animals are equal among themselves". {ro danlu cu dunli}
> > seems too vague to me, I want to ask {dunli ma}, equal to
> > what?
>
> That's for preventing the two jufra from logically contradicting
> each other, and for covering what the pigs mean by this:
> "all animals are equal, yes, right, but that doesn't mean anything
> in practice: some animals are more equal than others!..."

So you're working for the pigs? ;)

The pigs' ammendment to justify the unjustifiable is nonsensical
in English, and the translation should reflect that.

> > The second part perhaps {i ku'i su'o danlu cu zmadu
> > su'o drata lo ka dunzma}.  {su'o} seems necessary there.

(I meant {lo ka dunli} there, not {dunzma}.)

> I don't see why. Doesn't {lo} guarantee the existence of at least
> one superior animal?

{lo} doesn't say anything about numbers, {lo danlu} does not address
the issue of instances. A quantifier brings that in, and here what we
want to do is precisely distinguish some instances from others, so
that's why I would use {su'o}.

But translation is more an art than a science, so there is not one
single right answer.

mu'o mi'e xorxes