From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 18 17:00:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 19 Jun 2001 00:00:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 11346 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2001 00:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jun 2001 00:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2001 00:00:25 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15C8wM-0004ds-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:00:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:00:18 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Sentence translation Message-ID: <20010618170018.C17399@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <9gipve+tl32@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9gipve+tl32@eGroups.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 05:38:54PM -0000, jjllambias@hotmail.com wrote: > In any case, what I find most objectionable is using {ko} there > instead of {do}. What exactly is the command? Whatever {do} does, the > statement will be true anyway, or in any case it will be up to you to > make it true, so it is a promise/threat, not a command. > > Unless you are interpreting it as both a command and a threat, i.e. a > blend of {ko co'u zutse le mi karce} and {do co'u zutse le mi karce > ijonai mi popygau le do stedu sepi'o le vi barda grana}. But can it be > both? We've been over this before, but in my opinion, yes. There's another way, as well: va'o le nu do na sisti le nu zutse le mi karce kei kei mi popygau le do stedu sepi'o le vi barda grana I'm sure there's a better way to do the 'kei kei' though. -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/