You could say "I don't know something which I should bring about."
{mi na djuno da poi mi bilga gasnu}
Unfortunately the x2 place of {djuno} has to be a {du'u} (the fact
that) statement, which disallows that statement. So I think I have to
do this:
{mi na djuno du'u mi bilga gasnu}
That means "I don't know the fact that I have to bring about
something." Which is wrong.
{mi na djuno du'u la'e mi bilga gasnu ma}
"I don't know the fact that: the referent of: I have to bring about what?"
I will leave it to better Lojbanists than I, to tell me whether that's
even coherent.
{djuno}'s x2 {du'u} frustrates me. I have heard a truly vast number of
instances in which lojbanists attempt to use {djuno} which are not in
any way {du'u}. It often involves training rather than a fact. This
seems to me to be a deficit in the existing vocabulary.
-epkat
On 8/6/06, Timo Paulssen <timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de> wrote:
well, the subject isnt my problem, but translating it... a few days (weeks?) ago i asked this question on the lojban irc channel and i was not quite satisfied with what i got... my idea was something like this: .i mi na djuno da poi mi gasnu ke'o .ei i forgot what the second method was, but it included using ma and then adding kau to it... mu'omi'e timos