On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> 2011/6/1 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <
felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
>
> > .i da'a no lo so'u balvi javni cu clacizyjvovau
>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 01:27:20PM -0400, Alex Rozenshteyn wrote:
>
> to .i lo pluka be mi ku se zmadu va'o da'i lo du'u de'u se krasi lo'u .i no
> lo le'u .e nai zo'e toi
>
> ( I would have liked it better if the statement began {.i no lo}
Which completely reverses the meaning; "all" vs. "none"; you caught
that, yeah?
Yes; "none" would have been more limiting, while "all" forces more weirdness.
> (Comments on my lojban _expression_ of this welcome) )
Good, cuz I waz gonna. :)
I actually pretty much figured it out, which is a good sign I think.
I prefer using causals for this sort of construct, though;
mi zmadu se pluka se mu'i lo nu da'i de'u se krasi li'o
The thing I don't like about that is that it's not clear which one I prefer.
As a style comment, the ".e nai zo'e" seems pretty pointless; either
say what you mean (".e nai lo'u da'a no lo le'u") or skip it.
In English, I might have said something like "[...] and not ..." where I would trail off and use extra-linguistic means to convey the second place of "and". {.e nai zo'e} seems to do exactly that, and I imagine {co'e} and {zo'e} will see much more use in speech than they seem to in writing.