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:
...They're not at all close in meaning, in fact they're closer to being opposites than to being the same. The old {broda co'a lo nu brode} has broda happening when brode begins; the new one has broda beginning when brode is happening. A trivial example of the difference is if {lo nu brode} lasts forever in a universe where "forever" extends infinitely in both directions, then the new version is just {co'a broda} (every event is simultaneous with an event that lasts forever), while the old version is nonsensical.
Yes, but we're not talking about hypothetical examples, we're talking specifically about the haiku, as shown by the statement "As far as my haiku is concerned....".
In this particular instance, it's "Flowers bloom when Spring begins", versus "Flowers begin to bloom during Spring". The two meanings are close enough in this case it really doesn't matter.
So how does the IRC interpretation deal with {ZAhO lo broda ku ... [cu] ZAhO brode}?
How about both, although I was asking about the former.
mi'e la latro'a mu'o
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 .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.