From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 30 10:05:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 17:05:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 89164 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 17:04:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 17:04:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 17:04:43 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1559Og-0000Tr-00 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:04:38 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:04:38 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Not a troll, just a silly post [Was Re: Enemy & Re: No number base] Message-ID: <20010530100437.O12764@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <01053015354207.06088@neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01053015354207.06088@neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:35:42PM +0300, Robin Turner wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 01:47, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > > In the above example, just for the wordplay. In general, {du} and > > {me} mean practically the same thing when the sumti has a single > > referent (as in this case). Both {me lo broda} and {du lo broda} are > > basically longwinded ways of saying {broda}. > > > And nice wordplay it is too! However, there is still no way to > translate "All your base are belong to us" into Lojban while > preserving the original nuances. That's because its nuances are about the fact that English has a required plural/singular distinction. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/