Re: [lojban] le ga'irfanta

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

>  <<
>  le ga'irfanta fanmo detri cu sumji lo nanca be li su'omu
>  le detri be le nu lei cukta mu'o selpaprybi'o >>
>
> Thanks!
> Oops!  It was an illegitimate lujvo all along.  Ah, well, the message was
> more important than its expression?

We can't really tell whether the Lojban gets the message across
by itself when we have already seen the English translation.

> I still have my worries about <sumji>, but this is pretty close to regular
> mathematical addition anyhow -- and <jmina> seems to cover the a- (even
> anti-)symmetric cases.

I just can't see anyone adding anything to the date. It is
a relationship between dates, not between an agent and the dates.
But I agree I am stretching {sumji}, because {lo nanca} is
not the same kind of thing as {lo detri}.

> Couldn't the second date given be just that of the publication of the first
> book, since <lei> is implicitly quantified <pisu'o>?  The ruling involved
> wants <piro> (or use <le>).

I could have used {le}, I guess. But I take the implicit
quantification of {lei} to be {piro}. I know the book says
otherwise, but {pisu'o} just doesn't make sense to me, for
the same reason that {ro} has to be the default for {le}.

co'o mi'e xorxes



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com