From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jan 28 06:23:35 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 28 Jan 2002 14:23:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 79657 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2002 14:23:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2002 14:23:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2002 14:23:33 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.c8.2169719b (17377)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:23:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <c8.2169719b.2986b8d1@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:23:13 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c8.2169719b.2986b8d1_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_c8.2169719b.2986b8d1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/27/2002 7:57:03 PM Central Standard Time, 
a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:


> any normative style is going to
> be strongly SAE-influenced at this stage, which is to'e lojbo

Not so, not so. Many SAE features are thoroughly lojbo: SVO and SOV, tense 
and negation position, and so on. The fact that a feature occurs in SAE does 
not mean that it is inappropriate for Lojban (after all, formal logic is an 
SAE invention and so likely to be somewhat that way, even though it is VSO). 
Of course, doing things SAE because that is what youare familiar with, rather 
than rethinking it in Lojban terms is objectionable -- but hard to prove. 
On the current issue, I would assume that the glossray order of arguments is 
the natural Lojban order and rearrangements need a reason, aesthetic, usually 
(get messy phrases to an end, copy another style, cadence, emphasis,...).

--part1_c8.2169719b.2986b8d1_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/27/2002 7:57:03 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">any normative style is going to<BR>
be strongly SAE-influenced at this stage, which is to'e lojbo</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Not so, not so. Many SAE features are thoroughly lojbo: SVO and SOV, tense and negation position, and so on.&nbsp; The fact that a feature occurs in SAE does not mean that it is inappropriate for Lojban (after all, formal logic is an SAE invention and so likely to be somewhat that way, even though it is VSO).&nbsp; Of course, doing things SAE because that is what youare familiar with, rather than rethinking it in Lojban terms is objectionable -- but hard to prove.&nbsp; <BR>
On the current issue, I would assume that the glossray order of arguments is the natural Lojban order and rearrangements need a reason, aesthetic, usually (get messy phrases to an end, copy another style, cadence, emphasis,...).</FONT></HTML>

--part1_c8.2169719b.2986b8d1_boundary--

