Subject: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:16:57 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:

>
> la djan cusku di'e
>
> >People surely don't write "cumki fa le nu..." because it is
> >short, but rather because they are calquing "It is necessary that ..."
>
> "It is _possible_ that ...". I often wished there was a UI for
> that...

Subjectively I use ju'o, and ju'ocu'i instead of cumki fa le nu, which is
ridiculously weighty.

-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.