Re: Beginners attempt at translation [was Re: lo se pensi]

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Chris Double:
>>John Hodges:
>> >ro le nu kusru cu se rinka le ka ruble
>'All events of something being cruel to something are caused by the
property
>of weakness" or
>'All cruelty is the result of some form of weakness'

{le ka ruble} is the property of weakness, not an instance of weakness.
I don't think the property can be a cause of anything. A better way to put
it
might have been:

    ro nu kusru cu se rinka lo nu ruble
    "All cruelty is the result of some weakness."

I might understand it if ka were used in both places of rinka, but I don't
think the mixture of ka and nu makes sense. {le ka kusru cu se rinka
le ka ruble} might be interpreted as "the property of being
cruel is caused by the property of being weak", meaning that having
one is caused by having the other.

 >>Jorge Llambias
>>i xu do di'u te smuni le du'u ro kusru cu ruble da
>'Is it true that you believe that 'all cruel people are weak in some
>property' is a meaning of the previous sentence?"
>
>I'm not sure about that last one. Is it saying 'do you believe that all
>cruel people are weak in some manner' or is it saying 'are you saying that
>all cruel people are weak in some manner'. I think the latter.

You're right. {smuni} means "x1 means x2 to x3", so I am asking whether
what he said means to him  that everyone who is cruel is weak. I.e. whether
that was the meaning he intended.

>So in essence, John said 'All cruelty is the result of some from of
>weakness' and Jorge is saying 'are you saying the all cruel people have a
>weakness'.
>
>Close? Far Away? In the ballpark?

I'd say very close.

co'o mi'e xorxes