From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jul 26 18:54:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 27 Jul 2001 01:54:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 17487 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2001 01:54:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jul 2001 01:54:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.190) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2001 01:54:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:54:29 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.60 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:54:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.60] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] love at first sight.. Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:54:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2001 01:54:29.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[1293A060:01C1163F] From: "Jorge Llambias" la rafael cusku di'e >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. {mi nanca li civo} is logical/grammatical/short. For more precision you might say for example {le temci be le nu mi jbena kei bei le cabna cu nanca li civo}. >For the precise (though very clumsy) I would say: >le nanca be li rebi cu ni purci fa le nu mi jbena I'm not sure exactly what {ni} means, so I can't say how precise that is. Is {le ni da purci de} the same as {le temci be da bei de}? >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. I'm just not too keen on that {tu'a}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp