From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Oct 14 15:56:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 14 Oct 2002 22:56:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 47616 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2002 22:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Oct 2002 22:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2002 22:56:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 181ECY-0001r7-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:00:42 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 181EBy-0001qm-00; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:00:06 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-12.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 181EBt-0001qU-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:00:02 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-33.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.33]) by mailbox-12.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEC65B841 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:54:54 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: x1 is of type x2 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 23:56:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: <20021014155124.GA9906@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 2181 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:46:40AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 01:56:06PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > [...] > > Also I think the original makes a stronger claim than "na bilga" (== it > > is false that should), so perhaps you should consider using a scalar > > negator. Something like > > to'e bilga co tavla fi le'e tai co'e va'o loi sivni > > bilga co to'e tavla fi le'e tai co'e va'o loi sivni > > .einai tavla fi le'e tai co'e va'o loi sivni > > .e'i to'e tavla fi le'e tai co'e va'o loi sivni > > (or other such thing) > > Or you could even just put it in the selbri tag place (for any of the > above variants, (and others)): > to'e bilga co tai tavla va'o loi sivni > > Which is probably a lot better than "fi le'e tai co'e". "tai tavla" would meant something like "talk in a zo'e-ish way", whereas "tavla fi le'e tai co'e" would mean "talk about the co'e of the zo'e sort", which seems a better translation (at least in the context of manifold considerations about what makes for a good translation). What is the difference between {tai} and {se kai}? --And.