From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Oct 06 13:59:48 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 20:57:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 25170 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 20:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 20:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 20:59:47 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.42.176]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011006205945.XADG268.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:59:45 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] translation exercise Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:59:03 +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" xorx: > la ritcrd cusku di'e > > >What if he's convicted of attempted murder, serves his prison sentence, > >gets released, and then goes out and kills someone 20 years on? I don't > >think the original English phrase precludes that sequence of events. > > Neither does the Lojban: > > le fenki cu se kavbu pu ro nu fy catra da > > >It's only concerned with him being captured before committing the murder > >that he is currently planning to commit. So 'ro' implies a stronger > >meaning that the original text IMHO. > > In that case your objection should be about an unrelated murder > commited 20 years before, not after. You could use {ro le nu} if > only relevant murders are to be considered. i.e. {le fenki cu se kavbu pu le nu fy catra da} I don't think this is any good, because you're not talking about each of certain specific events. Better would be {le fenki cu se kavbu pu ro co'e nu fy catra da} or somesuch. --And.