[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 18/09/2012 02:34:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:53 PM, John Cowan <cowan@hidden.email <mailto:cowan@hidden.email>> wrote:
Tsar Boris III of Bulgaria died in 1943; so much is fact. It's widely
believed that the Germans murdered him by poison, but neither the cause of
death nor the identities of the killers (if any) were ever established.
How would you say in Xorban
The Germans probably killed Boris by poison.
in such a way that the factuality of his death is preserved, while the
questions of murder and poison remain open? I'm not even sure how to
adequately express this in English (other than by the two sentences at
the start of this post), but loglangs are supposed to get this kind of
thing right.
Nice one. Without checking Jorge's and And's answers (I promise) I have:
le {past}e fe la qborisqa [ha'e] mrsa je so lklyo ho la dtca gsnake
so lklyo ho ju li vndi plno'eki gsno'eke.
That Boris [in reality] died was both likely caused by the Germans
and likely caused (by someone) using poison.
I don't think the likelys should be within scope of [past]e fe. Also, can fe really bind gsnake and gsno'eke? And I can't parse it. the sentence seems to end for me between mrsa and je. Ah -- you must be intending [past]e to be some sort of unary operator, not a predicate. Okay, so the likelys aren't in its scope. Your ho is my "to fo".My version and Jorge's neglected to treat the Germans as killers and the poisoning as separate likelihoods. I'll go and revisit my version in the light of that.