From araizen@newmail.net Sat Feb 19 13:19:36 2000 X-Digest-Num: 369 Message-ID: <44114.369.2034.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:19:36 +0200 From: "Adam Raizen" Subject: Re: Translation needed la xorxes cusku di'e > la adam cusku di'e > > > > i lei selsabji cu selcmi loi xamgu tsiju e loi mapti tutci > > > e lo nu ka'e cpacu lo djacu i loi cmalu nu xagze'a fa loi > > > cange tadji e loi cidja sorcu tadji cu sidju ji'a > > > > > > >The x2 of cmima is a set, so it should be "le'i selsabji". > > {cmima} is also defined as "x1 belongs to group x2". It goes > against my principles to use sets, since I find that they > don't add anything to what can be done with masses, and > they're likely to be used in places where they should't be. > Is the sentence with {lei selsabji} any less clear than > what it would be with {le'i selsabji}? Is there any possible > difference in meaning? No, it's not any less clear, nor is there a difference in meaning here, though there might be in other circumstances. Would there be *any* circumstance in which you would use sets, or are le'i, lo'i, la'i, ce, etc. just wasted words? co'o mi'e adam Adam Raizen araizen@newmail.net ------------------------------------------------------------- The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. --Robert Heinlein