* Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 18:41 -0400 - Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>:
> On Oct 16, 2011 6:23 PM, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 19:22 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> > > So am I taking "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" too literally?
> >
> > Actually, what do you make of this argument for not taking it too
> > literally:
> >
> > {lo rozgu cu xunre}
> > == {zo'e noi rozgu cu xunre}
> > == {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
> > == {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
> > == {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}
> > == {lo xunre cu rozgu}
>
> What's wrong with that? The rose is a red thing. The red thing is a rose.
> I don't see what the problem is
Those two sentences aren't generally considered equivalent in english.
Moreover, xorxes would give "roses are red" and "red things are roses"
as possible translations. Those are even more clearly non-equivalent.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpd4wtyj7DXh.pgp
Description: PGP signature