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 allowed to intend.
-Matt
--- Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com
> wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
> 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.org
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.