Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/28/2002 2:21:32 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:

>
> la djan cusku di'e
>
> >People surely don't write "cumki fa le nu..." because it is
> >short, but rather because they are calquing "It is necessary that ..."
>
> "It is _possible_ that ...". I often wished there was a UI for
> that...



Subjectively I use ju'o, and ju'ocu'i instead of cumki fa le nu, which is
ridiculously weighty.

{cumki fa le nu} is both the logical way and the clearest (if {le nu..} is at all complex, the {cu cumki} is liable to be lost, whereas this tell the listener what is the central idea is AND that a {le nu} is coming)

{ju'o} seems wrong for "possibly" which typically suggests significant doubt.  And, of course, it is terrible for "necessary," in any of the nibli, nitcu or sarcu senses.