From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 30 14:06:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 21:06:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 33896 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 21:05:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 21:05:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 21:05:44 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155D9z-00025C-00 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:05:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:05:43 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Message-ID: <20010530140543.Z12764@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <3a.15b87efa.2846b519@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3a.15b87efa.2846b519@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 04:42:01PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/30/2001 2:45:00 PM Central Daylight Time, > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > (I tactfully will not mention how many copies of this I received) That was an accident. Normally I send exactly one copy that goes to the list, as this one is doing. > > > Well, the formula looks to be negative ("la"), and the usual trat > > > is "There is no God but Allah" so it might literally be {no da poi > > > na du la .allax. cu cevni}, which, unfortunately, allows for > > > atheism, so it is not right either -- for so does the cowan's > > > version. As I was saying about quantifiers, ... > > > > no da poi na dunli la .alsax. du lo pa cevni > > > But {dunli} ain't {du}, two distinct things can be dunli in all sorts of > terdunli but still be two distinct things. So this allows two equal gods -- > or more -- as well as none and one. Ah. I thought they were the same. Fine, then: no da poi na du la .alsax. du lo pa cevni What's the problem? > > "allah" turns out to be really hard to lojbanize. 'll' is illegal, as > > is 'la'. > > > Time for doing to Arabic what we have done to Chinese -- but do we have a > native Arabic speaker? I know we have some pros. I incline to {alxax} just > because it sounds Arabic, but that is stereotypy and ignorance and who knows > what it might turn out to mean. {alex}? {alyx}? -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/