Return-Path: Message-Id: <9112101519.AA00747@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Tue Dec 10 12:01:24 1991 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!C.J.Fine Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: so'o pinka be ledo selfanva X-To: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 10 12:01:24 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Nick: I very much enjoyed reading your Aesop translations, and on the whole I think you have expressed them well. I have a few comments to offer, some of which probably reflect my lack of understanding. General: I notice you often use "noi" in cases where I would be inclined to use tanru. eg. "lo lorxu noi xagji" as opposed to "lo xagji lorxu". This is a perfectly valid (and indeed more precise) form of expression - I just wanted to point out the possibility, and also to wonder on whether the original Greek wouldn't have used lots of participles, giving a structure if not a sense closer to that obtained with tanru. I notice it particularly in contrast to your very elegant solution to the place structures of "bacru" and "tavla": "lenu tavla be da be'o bacru de" (though I can't help wondering if the places are wrong, if you need to do this). I wonder about your use of the gadri "le", "lo" and "lei". What struck me particularly is the variation between your titles and your text. "me le lorxu .e lei vanyjba .i lo lorxu..." This certainly reflects English usage (if you treat "le" as "the" and "lo" as "a", as we often do for short) - though you do not in fact use "the" in your English titles. But I wonder if it is a good pattern. It seems to me, that you do have a specific fox in mind, and "le" would be more appropriate in the text of the fable. This is even clearer with the crab: "... lo canldrdanlrkandre le mamta cu se tavla ..." I find it difficult to make sense of the lo/le distinction here, unless it really does reflect the indefinite/(relatively) definite distinction in English. Again, your use of "lei" suggests to me that you are more or less using it for a plural: "the ants" are surely some specific ants ("le manti"), not some part of the mass of all ants ("lei manti"). Similarly "loi vanyjba"; and in your morals at the end of the fables, I would prefer "lo pajni be lo prenu be'o cusku" to "lei ... lei...". "lego'i" - strictly, this means "the individual(s) described as satisfying the previous bridi", so for example in "Fox and grapes" it doesn't mean "the fox" but "the wanter to get them and not able to get". In general these will be extensionally the same, but I'm a little dubious about this as a general technique. More specific comments: Fox and grapes: "vimcu vo'a"? "subtracted himself from ..."? I think this is a poor choice of brivla. (I'm only guessing "vo'a" means self - I still haven't found my cmaste). I wonder about your alternation of "naka'e cpacu" and "na'eka'e xagri'a" - I can make sense of both, and I'm not yet used to negation, so there may be a good reason for the difference that I'm missing. Crab and mother: I thought that the modified gismu on the front of a le'avla was just to give a general semantic area - it seems unwieldy and contrary to the spirit of le'avla to shove two of them on there. I agree with you about ablatives. "mosra" not "morsa". Crow and fox: I think you missed out an abstractor "noi ba'o kavbu lo rectu" "...noda fau ... turni roda ..." - I'm not quite sure what it means to use the same variable differently quantified in the same sentence, but I have a strong feeling that it is clearer to use different ones. Tortoise and Hare: Surely you mean "resprtestudine" don't you? (zo'o) "na'e gunka jundi" - "non-workingly attended"? I would not use "gunka" here. I would prefer "kazvajni", "terzukte", "selmukti", or even "fuzme" - or just "na'e jundi". "le se cusku cu xusra ve cusku ledu'u..." "the thing- expressed assertingly-is-a-form-of-expression of the- statement-that" (unless the place structure of "cusku" has changed since my list). I'm not entirely sure what this means, because I'm not certain of the meanings of the places. Is it appropriate for the x2 to be "lu ... li'u" or "la'elu ... li'u"? Either way, a statement of the form "le se broda cu ve broda" is likely to be a little suspect - I'm sure there are cases where it makes sense, because it happens that the same kind of thing can fill both places (though I can't think of any off-hand) but the x2 and x4 of "cusku" are surely very different animals? It appears to me that EITHER "lo se cusku" is a piece of text, utterance etc, in which case "cusku" has no place to express the meaning, and you'll have to use something like "le se cusku cu xusra ledu'u ..." OR "lo se cusku" is a meaning, content etc, in which case you probably want "le ve cusku cu xusra ve cusku ledu'u..." (and all the people who have written things like "la fred. cu cusku lu ..." are wrong). I'm a little uncertain about comparing ("vlimau") a "se ckaji" and a "nu trocu" - aren't they rather different kinds of thing? Similarly, the hare neglects the race because of his 'ka sutra', while the tortoise is aware of his 'ni masno' - while you can certainly make a case for these different abstractors, I think you might improve the parallel (zu'u) by using the same one both sides. I hope you will take these remarks constructively, as they are intended. Colin (c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk)