[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: simple Lojban text
- To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>, Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>, Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
- Subject: Re: simple Lojban text
- From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 19:59:50 GMT
- In-Reply-To: <no.id>; from "Logical Language Group" at Mar 18, 92 12:43 am
- Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!pucc.Princeton.EDU!LOJBAN>
>
> .i lo nanla .e lo nixli cu se minde fi to'ebo leka to'e clite nunkelci
>
"are commanded to be the reverse of the *quality* of (something is) non-polite
play"
This seems very convoluted to me, and I don't mean the two "to'e"'s. I
would prefer something like
to'ebo le nu to'e clite kelci
"the reverse of the *event* of (somebody is) non-polite player"
>
> semu'i ledu'u la cev. na zanru lo xlali valsi .a le xlali selzukte
>
I think you mean "mu'i".
".a" means that there is at least one he does not approve. ".e" would
mean he approves neither.
Also, why the "lo"/"le" alternation?
kolin