From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Oct 05 17:41:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 00:41:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 91186 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 00:41:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 00:41:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 00:41:08 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.29]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011006004101.FTIE710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:41:01 +0100 Reply-To: To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] translation exercise Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:40:02 +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: <3BBC7D62.5070504@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" > And Rosta wrote: > > > I'm wondering how to say this in Lojban: > > > > "Fortunately, the madman was captured before he murdered someone" jrc: > le fekpre pu selkavbu > ja'e lenu fanta lenu ri catra zo'e "The madman was captured, thereby preventing him from killing" -- Okay, but it doesn't have the same implicatures, and it ignores the apparent temporal relationship expressed by the English. John: > > I was going to say .ui le fenki pu kavbu ca le nu fy. pu'o catra > da, but I think we decided that you can't be in the pu'o stage of > something that never gets to the ca'o stage. > > How about .ui le fenki pu kavbu pu leda'i nu fy. catra da, then. > The "da'i" emphasizes that "fy. catra da" does not hold. > > I know the predicates are not too precise. "The madman was captured prior to a certain thing that, speaking hypothetically, I describe as an event wherein he killed someone" -- doesn't really work for me. Jorge: > I think maybe: > > i'e le fenki cu se kavbu pu ro nu fy catra da > > Of course that doesn't say that he didn't murder anyone _after_ > he was captured, but does the English really say that, or just > implicates it? (Someone caught presumably can't murder.) > I'm counting on {ro} having no existential import. "The madman was captured prior to every event wherein he killed someone" -- as Robin pointed out, this would be false if he'd killed anybody in the past, but I accept that the English favours that reading. > Compare with: > > "Fortunately, the madman was captured before he died" > > That doesn't say that he didn't die, because capturing someone > does not in general prevent them from dying. > > So, I think that the information given is that he didn't murder > anyone before he was captured, and the implication is that he > didn't murder anyone after having been captured (and also that > had he not been captured he might have.) I agree. My thought was: i'e ge le fenki cu se kavbu gi na go'i ba lo nu fy catra da "The madman was captured but not after he had killed someone" (How does one negate a BAI/tense sumti but not the whole bridi?) This has the advantage of not relying on ro's lack of existential import (which is a real lack, but one not usually relied on). --And.