As far as my haiku is concerned, the "old" interpretation and the "IRC" interpretation are near enough in meaning that I don't really feel it needs changing, however:
In what sense? What semantics does it assign it, or how does it achieve the old semantics of that statement? (I assume you dropped a {nu}).So how does the IRC interpretation deal with {ZAhO lo broda ku ... [cu] ZAhO brode}?
Here's a possible fix, though it's already quite different from the original, plus I really don't like the -cfa-:
lo nunvesycfa
cu jai co'a rulba'o
ja'e lo nunmle
I wouldn't call that a fix. If anything, it's worse than the original, IMO.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.