From grey.havens@earthling.net Thu Jul 26 17:58:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: grey.havens@earthling.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 27 Jul 2001 00:58:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 16418 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2001 00:58:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jul 2001 00:58:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hermes.epita.fr) (163.5.255.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2001 00:58:23 -0000 Received: from epita.fr (ding.epx.epita.fr [10.225.7.13]) by hermes.epita.fr id f6R2ufK13605 for EPITA Paris France Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:56:42 GMT Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 03:05:34 +0200 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] love at first sight.. Message-Id: <20010727030534.1d8cedf6.grey.havens@earthling.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.4.65 (GTK+ 1.2.8; i386--freebsd5.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Elrond On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:43:23 "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > >b: tu'a mi nanca li rebi {the phrasebook said this is bad translation?} > > Not bad, just unnecessarily clumsy in my opinion. I confess, I did make this translation and marked it as "bad". Please remind me how to speak about ages, both in a vague/familiar/short fashion, and a more precise/logical/grammatical one. For the precise (though very clumsy) I would say: le nanca be li rebi cu ni purci fa le nu mi jbena I find "tu'a mi nanca li rebi" to be both compliant to my idea of a "lojbanic style" and to usual criterias of shortness, but indeed I also feel it is clumsy. Would you mind suggesting something better ? (I know, I know, I'm sure the issue has been raised many times, but I just can't find the last time it was in the archives) co'o mi'e rafael -- Linux is for people who hate Windows, BSD is for people who love Unix.