From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Sep 23 15:39:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 23 Sep 2001 22:38:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 29665 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2001 22:38:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 23 Sep 2001 22:38:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2001 22:39:18 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.36]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010923223913.HKFJ710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:39:13 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Dumb answers to good questions Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:38:29 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" xod: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > > > At 07:23 PM 9/22/01 +0100, wrote: > > >Xod: > > > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > It'd be a very bad thing if they couldn't be translated into Lojban, but > > >the grammar of UI is plenty powerful enough to translate them. However, > > >to my mind, the semantics of focus calls not for a discursive but for > > >the kind of logicosyntactic manipulations evident in the English. > > > > Why? Specifically, why must Lojban convey things by logicosyntactic > > manipulations merely because English does? > > And why must Lojban express every nuance of English? also na'i. Focus looms large in many (most? all?) languages of the world, often much larger than it does in English. Nick and Ivan are better people than me to explain all this. --And.