Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.22;
Message-ID: <52C9939B.2070705@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:17:15 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] Assorted translation questions
References: <CALMa68ombeqmg8H=zCOv5Of3ZOY+ZSLKAK8Mas+WBRTmJMDx6w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68ombeqmg8H=zCOv5Of3ZOY+ZSLKAK8Mas+WBRTmJMDx6w@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .asiz. cu cusku di'e
> I should mention that I haven't read the original, though I am naturally
> familiar with the general plot. Also, I am reading a version I
> downloaded last year, soon after you announced the work.

If you can, you might want to download a new version. I have fixed over=20
100 typos since then.

> Chapter 1
>
> 1. {lo zd=C4=81ni cu k=C4=81ndi gi'e gr=C5=B3si kei du'i tu'a ro dr=C4=81=
ta};
>
> Why the {tu'a}? To me, it is quite normal for dunli1 and dunli2 to be
> simple objects.

This topic is one of my specialties. :D

I use BAI in such a way that whenever their source predicate has a sumti=20
place that could integrate the main bridi, then they will do so (I=20
explained the same thing in the {to'e ri'a} thread).

{du'i} is one such BAI. I define it thus:

broda du'i X ~=3D X dunli lo su'u broda

So, I would say, for example:

    (1) do bajra du'i lo nu lo tirxu cu bajra
        "Your run is like that of a tiger."

It is seldom the case that a concrete object is {dunli} to an=20
abstraction, although it is not impossible. But usually, replacing the X=20
in the above equation with a concrete object will create "non-sense".=20
But we can use {tu'a X} when we don't want to specify the full=20
abstraction, or when it's obvious.

    (2) do bajra du'i tu'a lo tirxu
        "You run like a tiger [runs]"

The expansion of this {tu'a X} is almost always {lo nu X no'a}, which=20
correspsonds to the English in []-brackets in (2).

> 2. {lo re da ca lo nu fa'a c=C4=81tlu cu v=C4=97ska lo cm=C4=81lu b=C5=8D=
xna};
>
> Is {lo re da} any different from {lo re mei}?

Not really.

> 3. {la .t=C5=8Dtos. cu pl=C4=97pe fi lo b=C4=97rka be dy gi'e sezym=C4=97=
pri ni'a lo ck=C4=81na};
>
> Two things make me uneasy about the choice of {sezymipri}. Firstly,
> because I think mipri2 would be {lo du'u vo'a zvati ma kau}. Secondly,
> because I don't think there is any mipri3 to hide from in this
> particular case.

He might be hiding from potential enemies/threats, who knows what the=20
dog is thinking. .u'i

> What about {sezyselmragau}?

This word is a bit long, sadly, but I like the idea of "giving oneself=20
shelter". It's a shame that the {sez-____-gau} circumfix is so verbose.=20
It would be nice if it were shorter as it does occur somewhat=20
frequently. I'm going to go with your suggestion for now.

> 4. {b=C4=81jra ru'u bu'u lo k=C5=B3mfa fau lo nu zv=C4=81ti nu'i ge ca pa=
 da ti nu'u gi
> ca pa de ta fau lo nu cl=C4=81du cm=C5=8Dni};
>
> 4.1 Why you use {pa} instead of the elidable {su'o}? It seems to me that
> the relevant thing is just that Toto is moving around.

Agreed. I've changed it to implicit {su'o}.

 > 4.2 Toto only barks when he is "there", right? Otherwise you could
 > put a {nu'u} between {ta} and the second {fau}.

Yes, the {nu'u} is missing. I should probably use the simpler=20
gek-termset, which I actually like as opposed to {nu'i}, and then it=20
would be:

    (4.1b) bajra fau lo nu zvati ge ca da ti gi ca de ta fau lo nu cmoni

(it auto-terminates after the second term unlike the nu'i-termset)

> 5. {dy c=C4=97nmo lo ka s=C4=8Dpcni m=C5=B3tce};
>
> This is actually a more general question, since this construction
> recurs. To me, a sentence like the above one wouldn't be any different
> from {dy sepcni mutce}. I am guessing you have a more refined
> interpretation of {cinmo}. Can you quickly explain it, or give some point=
er?

I wouldn't read too much into it. Adding {cinmo} just has a different=20
flavor to it, like an additional emphasis on the act/state of feeling=20
something. Clearly, that it is superfluous doesn't mean it's bad to put=20
it there. It's only really superfluous here because {sepcni} is already=20
an emotion. {cinmo} lets us feel anything we put in cinmo2, like {cinmo=20
lo ka kakne}, which is useful in my opinion.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.