From yuvalh@hotpop.com Fri Sep 05 11:06:12 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from babyruth.hotpop.com ([204.57.55.14]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19vKyK-00059p-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:06:12 -0700 Received: from hotpop.com (kubrick.hotpop.com [204.57.55.16]) by babyruth.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2108C2141F0 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:22:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from yuval (bzq-114-211.red.bezeqint.net [62.219.114.211]) by smtp-3.hotpop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125CE70EFC9 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:22:40 +0200 To: "lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: le darlu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed References: <20030830220636.75217.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> From: Yuval Harel MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030830220636.75217.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Opera7.10/Win32 M2 build 2840 X-archive-position: 428 X-Approved-By: jkominek@miranda.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: yuvalh@hotpop.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Jorge "Llambías wrote: > > la iuvál cusku di'e > > [...] >> .i ny. cusku lo'u >> ki'e >> le'u >> >> .i ny. nerkla le li pare ku kumfa >> ========================== >> Comments, anyone? > > Nice translation! > > {ku} is not the terminator for {li}, it is {lo'o}, and {boi} terminates > the number. Without eliding any terminators it would be > {le li pareboi lo'o kumfa ku}. But in fact they are all elidable > here, you can just say {le li pare kumfa}. > > Any reason why you use lo'u-le'u instead of lu-li'u? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > Thanks for the comments! The reason I've used {lo'u}-{le'u} is that there is some swearing later on in the sketch, which I thought might translate nicely into incorrect Lojban. Using {lo'u}- {le'u} only around the incorrect quotes just doesn't seem right to me - I think that making them stand out disturbs the flow of the sketch and marking them before they appear somewhat spoils the effect. Is it wrong to apply {lo'u}-{le'u} to gramatically correct utterances? If not, I don't see any reason to use {lu}-{li'u} in story contexts anyway. I was quite surprised not getting any comments on some earlier parts of the translation, which I had doubts about and still don't seem right to me. So I'll just ask about them now... 1) "Good morning" I didn't really know how to tackle this. The {a'o nu xamgu cerni} I've used still doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't it in fact say "[I am hopeful], something is an event of something being a good morning", which asserts that an event of good morning occured, occurs, or will occur, instead of wishing for it? Another option I thought of is using {a'o le xamgu cerni} or {a'o lenu xamgu cerni}, but that raises two quostions: Firstly, is this grammatical at all, though it contains no selbri? And secondly, does it make sense to use {le} for a morning whose existence is not asserted, only imagined? 2) {mi djica lenu mi darlu}. The {le} does not seem right for the same reason I've mentioned earlier - that the event of arguing does not (yet) exist. Using {lo} seems even worse in that respect (though the English uses "a"). {le'e} seems appealing, since it refers to imaginary things, but the man does not say that he wishes the argument to be like other arguments he had - more probably having the best argument he had ever had would be at least somewhat satisfactory. 3) {le rinsa} That's just "The greeter", isn't it? Is there anything better for "receptionist"? ki'e mu'o mi'e iuvál.