Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <52CDC511.1040301@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 22:37:21 +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] Re: [oz] Assorted translation questions
References: <CALMa68ombeqmg8H=zCOv5Of3ZOY+ZSLKAK8Mas+WBRTmJMDx6w@mail.gmail.com> <CALMa68rmgSRv1uYYF-o_8ZBp7VfLFBWouZQutHYyE+=GxySxgQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68rmgSRv1uYYF-o_8ZBp7VfLFBWouZQutHYyE+=GxySxgQ@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: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

la .asiz. cu cusku di'e
> Chapter 2
>
> 6. {lo n=C4=81nmu (to la .d=C5=8Drotis. cu j=C4=97nvi toi) cu k=C4=81ijbi=
 lo ka d=C5=B3nli la
> nakf=C4=81mti .x=C4=8Dnris. lo ka tolc=C4=97'o .i ki'u bo lo re mei cu se=
 x=C4=8Djykre};
>
> I was quite confused at this part. In the first sentence, I was pretty
> sure that {lo nanmu} referred to the three Munchkins. From the second
> sentence, I guessed it was referring to only one of them, with {lo re
> mei} referring to the Munchkin plus Uncle Henry. Finally, I just looked
> at the picture in the HTML page, and noticed that two Munchkins are
> bearded, from what I am guessing that {lo re mei} refers to them. I am
> now unsure about whether {lo nanmu} refers to two or three Munchkins.
> If the first sentence is about less than three Munchkins, I suggest you
> externally quantify {lo nanmu}. If it is about all of them, but the
> second just talks about two of them, I suggest you use {re lo nanmu} or
> {re lo go'i}.

I just looked at the passage and I agree that it's not entirely clear=20
the way it is. Two of the munchkins are bearded, which makes Dorothy=20
conclude that all the men are about as old as Uncle Henry. I will add an=20
outer quantifier: {.i ki'u bo re lo nanmu cu se xejykre}.

> 7. {.i ku'i ca ku la m=C4=81xpre ku noi pu ca'o pu ca'o ne'a sm=C4=81ji s=
=C4=81nli cu
> cl=C4=81du cm=C5=8Dni gi'e degj=C4=81'o lo k=C5=8Djna be lo zd=C4=81ni be=
'o noi la p=C4=81lci
> termafyf=C4=8D'i pu ca'o vr=C4=8Dta};
>
> I may have missed something, but this was the first sentence that forced
> me to infer that the three men accompanying the Witch of the North were
> Munchkins. The fact that this is only suggested by the incidental
> relative clause puzzled me. Does this parallel the original?

Well, earlier the Good Witch says "Welcome to the land of the=20
Munchkins", so it's sort of there. And the original is the same, I checked.

> 8. {m=C4=97ntu bu'u la sn=C4=81nu}, {m=C4=97ntu bu'u la st=C4=97ci};
>
> The tense tag in this bridi doesn't make much sense to me. How come the
> identity holds in South?
>
> I am guessing the original was something like "It is just the same as in
> South", which I would literally translate as {mintu lo nu co'e bu'u la
> sn=C4=81nu}. What about
>    {mintu tu'a la sn=C4=81nu}, {mintu tu'a la st=C4=97ci}?

Agreed again. For such cases, I proposed to make {tu'a} able to be used=20
on tags, so that you could say {mintu tu'a bu'u la snanu}, but this=20
would have to be allowed first. Until then, the officially correct,=20
equivalent phrase would be {mintu lo nu co'e bu'u la snanu}, which is=20
what I'm going to use.

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.