From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 14 07:49:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 14 Oct 2001 14:49:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 47397 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2001 14:49:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Oct 2001 14:49:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Oct 2001 14:49:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.8d.dd56927 (18709) for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8d.dd56927.28faffd6@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:48:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] re : translation challenge: "If today is Monday..." To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8d.dd56927.28faffd6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8d.dd56927.28faffd6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/13/2001 1:04:38 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 01:28:12PM +0200, G. Dyke wrote: > > I don't like {mu'ei} ! (I had written a long paragraph explaining why, > but I > > erased it 'cause much of what I said doesn't make sense - I suppose I just > > don't like the idea of lojban not being able to express something which is > > so obvious in natural language) > > ... what? > > Because you don't like the idea of Lojban not being able to express the > subjunctive, you argue _against_ the thing which would make it > expressible? > I suppose the point is that Lojban can *already* deal with subjunctives; we just have not yet worked out how to do it. Running off after new devices before we have exhausted the capabilities of the ones we have is a vile practice of the lazy. (I made that last part up myself). Notice that there are at least two solutions to &'s question provided within standard Lojban. --part1_8d.dd56927.28faffd6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/13/2001 1:04:38 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 01:28:12PM +0200, G. Dyke wrote:
> I don't like {mu'ei} ! (I had written a long paragraph explaining why, but I
> erased it 'cause much of what I said doesn't make sense - I suppose I just
> don't like the idea of lojban not being able to express something which is
> so obvious in natural language)

... what?

Because you don't like the idea of Lojban not being able to express the
subjunctive, you argue _against_ the thing which would make it
expressible?


I suppose the point is that Lojban can *already* deal with subjunctives; we just have not yet worked out how to do it.  Running off after new devices before we have exhausted the capabilities of the ones we have is a vile practice of the lazy.  (I made that last part up myself).  Notice that there are at least two solutions to &'s question provided within standard Lojban. --part1_8d.dd56927.28faffd6_boundary--