Re: [lojban] Re: Meaningless talk

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

la xod cusku di'e

> .i mi co'a krefu cusku jy. noi nabmi .i da'o ru'a le satci bangu goi ko'a
> .i le bangu tcaci goi ko'e .i da poi jufra zo'u xusra be fa ko bei le du'u 
> da
> smuni kakne be'o jo cumki fa le du'u da smuni kakne ci'e ko'a

Ok, first I interpret that you meant to write {ro da poi jufra}
instead of {da poi jufra}. Otherwise your claim is too trivial,
"there is at least one sentence such that...". I assume you want
to make a universal claim. In English you can say "a sentence is
meaningful when..." meaning "for every sentence x, x is meaningful
when...", but in Lojban this English "a" must be translated as {ro}.

Secondly, the selbri of your sentence is very hard to interpret
if taken literally. You have one sumti {le du'u da smuni kakne
ci'e ko'a} and one very complex selbri claimed about that sumti:
{xusra be fa ko bei le du'u da smuni kakne be'o jo cumki}.

To me it is fairly obvious that you meant to have two sentences
joined by {ijo}, but you wrote one selbri applied to one sumti.
(And in your previous version you had two sumti occupying the
same x1 place of one selbri.

So in my interpretation so far you meant:

 ro da poi jufra zo'u

         ko xusra le du'u da smuni kakne
                       ijo
      cumki fa le du'u da smuni kakne ci'e ko'a


But it is impossible for me to take the command literally or
I would be asserting things from here to eternity. So, if I
understand correctly what you _meant_ to say, you are saying
things that are meaningless by your own standards.

i mi xenru le nu mi na spuda bau le lojbo i le nu tavla
fi la lojban fo la lojban cu dukse le ka nandu mi

co'o mi'e xorxes







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