From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Aug 17 11:39:00 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GDmlg-0007d4-Fu for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:39:00 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.186]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GDmlf-0007cx-Il for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:39:00 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so1175561nfc for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:38:56 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=g957/M2tR+7MIX5mwLLhvaPVE3mGzpZhtmOpuq3eQDzccwb3+R5nZTZO00WdYIj/MoyCgF/9RWK7M/eFqHZWTnKeszdXD2RZOeT9VBbuKKKzxcvpGMDW++5wXyDa7Ou7gQ/2k4qkWmVesw7S6iiCU/3wEmhmnNuA03nGBWaPsEk= Received: by 10.49.8.15 with SMTP id l15mr2823908nfi; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.92.8 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <737b61f30608171138o26d2bbfejc318c9d92e41da9e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:38:56 -0500 From: "Chris Capel" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: improved translation In-Reply-To: <44E4AAA3.4020708@freenet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44E4AAA3.4020708@freenet.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 3524 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pdf23ds@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Though I'm not great with Lojban either, I think I might see some issues with your translation. On 8/17/06, Michael Graff wrote: > .i lo munje puzuki citno .i ro cmana cu crino > .i noda poi barna lo lunra cu se viska Wouldn't it mean the same, and be nicer, to say "i no barno be lo lunra cu se viska"? > .i roda poi flecu gi'a rokci cu na'e se cmene I believe "gi'a" should be ".a.". "gi'a" only connects bridi, and "a" only sumti. ("ja" connects selbri within tanru and also connects sentences. > .i la durin. binxo lo cikna gi'e pavysei cadzu > > Without additional tense-cmavos the approximate simultaneity is already > expressed, isn't it? Yes, I believe so. I added "cazu" because I think the explicit repetition sounded nice. > .i mi ba pensi lo ve ciksi be lo smuni be zo ti be'o bei mi bei do bei > ne'i lo xatra Ack. That sentence makes my head hurt. Also, I think you have an extra "bei" before ne'i. Chris Capel -- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)