Re: lojbo cinmo

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>]

>From: SwiftRain <swiftrain@geocities.com>

>
>just a few moments ago, i thought (bau la lojban): 
> 
>"sampu fa le nu mi do .iu tavla ca le nu mi do na tavla" 
> - it's simple to talk to you (doi lo prami pendo be mi do'u) when i am
>not talking to you. 
> 
>so lojban certainly did not stop me from having that thought!  but then
>i thought: wait, can i say that in lojban?  it's a contradiction!  i
>FEEL like in logical lojban i should say satci what i mean: which is
>that it *seems* like it would be simple when i am not doing it, but it
>is not in fact. 

Well, but the contradiction is as stark in English as it is in Lojban.
If you feel that in Lojban you can't let it pass it is not due to something
that the language imposes on you. Lojban may help to clarify why
in English it is not a contradiction: you missed a terminator.

  sampu fa le nu mi do iu tavla kei ca le nu mi do na tavla

The event of not talking is simultaneous with the event of being 
simple, not with the event of talking. No contradiction there. 
In English, you have to rely on context to know how the clauses
relate to each other.

>.iesai mi djuno le du'u zasti fa zo sa'enai 
>.iku'i le cinmo na ka'e ciksi 

Note: {zo} can only quote one word, and {sa'enai} are two words,
so you need to use {lu sa'enai li'u}.

i pe'i le cinmo so'iroi ka'e ciksi ije le se cinmo ka'e se ciksi

co'o mi'e xorxes