From slobin@ice.ru Tue Jul 31 08:02:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: slobin@ice.ru X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 15:02:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 31469 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 15:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 15:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO party.ice.ru) (213.85.36.62) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 15:02:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (slobin@localhost) by party.ice.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id TAA31281 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:02:01 +0400 X-Authentication-Warning: party.ice.ru: slobin owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:02:01 +0400 (MSD) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Cyril Slobin On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Invent Yourself wrote: > > Is {lo nu djuno cu nu vlipa} a good translation for "knowledge is power"? > la'e di'u banzu .i se'i mi zmanei lu le kamdjuno du le kamvlipa li'u ko fraxu mi lenu spuda bau le na'e lojbo, I'm not fluent enough yet. Let me try to defend my version: 1) gardi should be {lo}, not {le}. I do not speak about some cetrain bit of knowledge, but about knowledge in general. The same for power-ness. 2) {du} is irrelevant: knowledge is power, but power is not always knowledge. Maybe {me}? But idea of using some cmavo for "is" to keep sentence symmery looks fine for me, thank you. 3) {nu} vs {ka}. It's hard to express formally, but I feel this is about events, not about properties. When I know something, I can something. But I am rather week at this point. 4) lujvo vs. analytic - matter of taste. I tend not to introduce lujvo praeter necessitiam. So, final (?) version: {lonu djuno me lonu vlipa}. Any more comments? -- Cyril Slobin