From richardt@flash.net Tue Jun 05 18:22:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 6 Jun 2001 01:22:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 32346 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 01:22:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jun 2001 01:22:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout2-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2001 01:22:55 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.101.234]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f561Mrc26276 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:22:53 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout2-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B1D754F.7B01712@flash.net> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:11:59 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] multiple choice questions References: <01060520283706.19849@neofelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd On Tue, 05 Jun 2001, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >> i do djica ma poi cmima lo birje ce lo vanju >> > (you want what, which is a member of the set composed of beer and wine?) >> > >> > .i xu do nelci di'u >> >> That's a great solution, IMO. Very lojbanic. >> > > > >It looks like a literal translation from a really bad English phrase-book. >{ji} is lojbanic (well, it certainly isn't any other language). Stop sugar-coating everthing and tell us what you really think... To me it looks like the english version is a badly-done literal translation of a lojban sentence. Of course that was on purpose to illustrate what I thought the lojban sentence was expressing. Since lojban has sets and sequences "built-in," I'd say constructions using them are very much in the spirit of lojban. It's not longer than the {ji} version, or particularly difficult to understand. So what, in particular, is your objection? Having a less-than-direct translation to English wouldn't hold much water. And I can't believe you'd say that it has 'too much logic' in it... I may be biased, since it's my sentence. At any rate, I wrote it when I didn't know about {ji}, and the whole point of my mail was to find out what other ways existed to say this. Thanks everyone for the help in this respect. Richard