orwell

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Dear Ree [all names in Lojban must end in a consonant, unfortunately]

> > >        piro loi prenu cu jikydunsi'u
> > >        i ku'i pisu'o ri zmadu loi drata le ka go'i
> > Which means "The whole of persondom is mutually socially-equal,
> > but some of it is more mutually socially-equal than something
> > else is".
> no..this one doesn't make as much sense as either yours or nick's, at
> least in english. the phrasing seems to say (to my uneducated ears):
> "a) all people are socially-equal, but b) some people are more
> socially-equal to each other than something else* is to such people ..."
> * = could be anything, making it a comparison of apples and oranges.
> should be "...more mutually socially-equal to each other as a group than
> to the whole..." or something less wordy.  or yours or nicks.

Hmm. Jorge's was probably the best qua Lojban. Nick's said "each person
is mutually socially equal" - but equal to what? What would it mean
to say "I am mutually socially equal"? Jorge's says "the whole of
persondom is mutually socially equal", the idea being that you take
any two parts of persondom (i.e. any two people) & you'll find they're
socially equal. Mine was (a) stylistically baroque, and (b) ungrammatical,
as you'll have seen from Jorge's comments. "Loi drata", which I rendered
as "something else", is intended in the context to mean "something other
than the bit of persondom just mentioned" - cf. "some are more equal than
*others*" - other than what? The English is quite similar to Jorge's
version.

> I asked which was the correct phrasing/spelling because of
> an idea i had after the question was first posted.

What was the idea?

And