From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Fri Feb 5 03:15:58 1999
X-Digest-Num: 53
Message-ID: <44114.53.205.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 13:15:58 +0200
From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: rights (2)

la maiky'elsym. cusku di'e

>
> .ite'i tu'e .i'icai.o'acairo'a ku roda poi prenu remna zo'u fi tu'a ma'a
> ze'eve'e bilga fe ledu'u vo'i curmi lenu da bu'a je bu'e je bu'i sei
> mu'a tu'u

Impressive, though I'm not sure if I follow it all. I assume by {bu'a/e/i}
you intend freedom, justice and peace to be inserted at these points. Why
{bu'a} though? Do you anticipate a selbri rather than a sumti in these
places?

I think this version shows both the potential and the risks of this
"deconstructing" approach to translation. It seems to rely on the
translator having an accurate picture of the attitudinal "subtext" (I'm
using these terms very loosely, hence the quotes). Where, for example, does
{.i'icai.o'acairo'a} come from? Presumably it's extracted from the overall
style of the document, rather than any particular phrase, which is a great
idea, but somewhat risky, as different styles mean different things to
different people.

zo'o proposed solution - make the UN write everything in Lojban first, then
it's easy to translate into natlangs.

co'o mi'e robin.