From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jan 28 15:05:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 28 Jan 2002 23:05:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 65831 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2002 23:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2002 23:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2002 23:05:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.13d.86adddf (4324) for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:05:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13d.86adddf.2987334b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:05:47 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13d.86adddf.2987334b_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_13d.86adddf.2987334b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/28/2002 2:21:32 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > 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. > {cumki fa le nu} is both the logical way and the clearest (if {le nu..} is at all complex, the {cu cumki} is liable to be lost, whereas this tell the listener what is the central idea is AND that a {le nu} is coming) {ju'o} seems wrong for "possibly" which typically suggests significant doubt. And, of course, it is terrible for "necessary," in any of the nibli, nitcu or sarcu senses. --part1_13d.86adddf.2987334b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/28/2002 2:21:32 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:



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.

{cumki fa le nu} is both the logical way and the clearest (if {le nu..} is at all complex, the {cu cumki} is liable to be lost, whereas this tell the listener what is the central idea is AND that a {le nu} is coming)

{ju'o} seems wrong for "possibly" which typically suggests significant doubt.  And, of course, it is terrible for "necessary," in any of the nibli, nitcu or sarcu senses. --part1_13d.86adddf.2987334b_boundary--