From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Oct 14 19:20:06 2002
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 15 Oct 2002 02:20:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 32076 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 02:20:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Oct 2002 02:20:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 02:20:06 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
  id 181HNw-0002aP-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:24:40 -0700
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 181HNP-0002a8-00; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:24:07 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox-11.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111])
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 181HNL-0002Zo-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:24:03 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-132.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.132])
  by mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE811FE51
  for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 04:18:55 +0200 (MEST)
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: x1 is of type x2
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:20:39 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAECIGLAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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: <20021015010317.GB11749@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 2186
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" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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 04:55:42PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 01:56:06PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > #> 2. "It isn't the sort of thing one should talk of in private."
> > #> 
> > #> Here one can say 
> > #> 
> > #> "na bilga lo'edu'u tavla fa lo'e mibypre fi le'e du va'o lo sivni"
> > #
> > #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. 
> > 
> > What stronger claim do you think the original makes? I'm not sure if 
> > I've missed something in the meaning.
> 
> Well, I think the claim "I shouldn't talk" is not the same as the
> claim "It is false that I should talk". It is a subtle diff, and
> depending on context using na might make more sense in the translation.
> Dunno.

Sure. "I shouldn't talk" = "bilga lo'e du'u mi na tavla". But that's
not what the original says, even though it implies it. So it's just
an issue of whether to translate the literal meaning or what is
implied by it? Ordinarily I'd go for what is implied, but in this
instance I prefer to go for what is said.

--And.




