On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:(I suggest "jdice" rather than "xusra" for "resolve". Also, if "ri" is
> On 09/30/2009 04:48 PM, chris kerr wrote:
>> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of:
>>
>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially
>> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially
>> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.
>>
>> I came up with: .i xusra lo du'u ma'a nitcu lo nu lo mergu'e ga jdika
>> lo ni ri ratske xarci ku gi jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci
"lo mergu'e", you want "te xarci", the extent to which the US is
nuclear-weaponed, not the extent to which the US is a nuclear weapon.
Or maybe you wanted to say "lo ri ni".)
I don't think this was ever settled one way or the other. The
>> But there is something not right with using {ni} to talk about reducing
>> the number of nuclear weapons.
>
> Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any
> abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to
> some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)? I seem to recall that {ni}
> and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in
> extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.
definition seems to say "ni" is a se klani, but mostly it is used as a
klani. I use it to mean "the extent to which (bridi) is true". For
"whether" I always use "lo du'u xu kau" rather than "lo jei".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
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.