Return-Path: Message-Id: <9201062046.AA03927@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Tue Jan 7 00:28:52 1992 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!C.J.Fine Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: attitudinals X-To: Bob Le Chevalier X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: ; from "Logical Language Group" at Dec 26, 91 11:10 am Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jan 7 00:28:52 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN [Lojbab comments at length on my dialogue - ci'edoi lojbab] > > Rhetorical use of questions can be marked with kau, as discussed in > JL15, or perhaps with peinai. Does this mean that 'kau' has changed since the logdata3.cma that I down-loaded from PLS in December? > I guess this would be suitable for > translating an English dialog rather literally. I've never noticed it > actually happen in Lojban conversation - but then we aren't speaking at > colloquial speeds. Colin's try was excellent - he did quite well and > understandably (I could read and understand without translation). I'll > present an edited version incorporating the above responses where I > think they fit, fixing his minor errors and changing a couple of minor > points where I think a Lojban conversation would less exactly match its > English equivalent. The text parallels Colin's original fairly closely > - the English translation is virtually identical. > > A cusku > lu ju'icoi. ritcyd. li'u .i B cusku > lu .ue.uanai .ua coicu'i li'u > sei le remei cu simxu se lidne cusku be di'e > .ilu klama ma li'u .ilu loi zarci li'u > .ilu .ua .i te vecnu ma li'u .ilu loi vrici li'u > .ilu .i ba zukte ma li'u .ilu .aicu'i tu'a loi skina .auru'e li'u > .ilu .ua .i ma selja'o li'u .ilu na djuno li'u > .ilu .a'u .e'apei kansa li'u .ilu cu'i li'u > .ilu .ai kansa > ni'o .i'anai doi ritcyd. > semu'i ma do naljikca li'u .ilu makau do pu malckasu mi li'u > .ilu .uecai .ianaicai ca ma > go'i li'u .ilu ca le prulamdei ne'i le gusta do cusku > ti'e ledu'u mi nalju'i gunka > > Intended translation: > > A:Hey, Richard! B:What? Oh, hi. > (The two mutually-followingly say the following:) > -Where you going? - Store. > -Oh. What for? - Stuff. > -What are you doing afterwards? - Dunno. Movie, perhaps. > -Oh. What's on? - Dunno. > -Oh. Can I come? - Whatever. > -Well I will. > -Look Richard, why are you > being so antisocial? - Why? You mocked me! > -What? You gotta be kidding. > When? - Yesterday, in the cafe, You said, > so I heard, that I was careless at work. Generally, I'm quite happy about your translation - there are just a couple of points. The first one is that the whole genesis of writing this dialogue was to get a very colloquial, laconic idiom - and the observatives were part of that. I see no reason why a jbocru in that sort of conversation would not say "zarci" and "vrici" (which, note, are perfectly grammatical) rather than making sumti of them. I like "tu'a loi skina" (I hadn't understood "tu'a" before) but, the same comment applies: you're putting extra verbiage in his mouth to achieve a somehow 'more appropriate' grammatical form - and I challenge whether this is necessary or desirable. "malckasu" was not what I meant - I think "termabla" is probably better (I didn't check the exact definition of 'mabla') Your "ne'i le gusta" loses something that was deliberately there, viz the rhetorical build-up of "ca ... .i ca ... .i ca" - or are you going to tell me that that sort ofrhetorical effect can/should/must be conveyed by UI? > > I tried to use a bit more variety in A's attitudinal response to B. Using > .ua as a simple acknowledgement of information seems inappropriate. je'e > (acknowledgement vocative) is better. But looking at the attitudinals > gives another response: In reality, this is not how such a conversation > would go in Lojban. Richard would have used rather more expressive > attitudinals that would have either cut off the conversation early, or > gotten to the crux of the matter: > > coiro'anai [Greetings, I'm feeling antisocial.] in response to the > opening would have been direct. Other attitudinals that might have been > used by Richard include le'ocu'i (passive) in response to A's repeated > questioning. .o'enai (distance) and .o'ocu'i (mere tolerance) and > .oi.i'anai (complaint+blame). A could have asked using attitudinal > questions .a'unaipei (Do you blame me?). His repeated asking questions > - (I ain't gonna let you off the conversation that easily) could include > le'oro'a (socially aggressive) and .a'a.io.i'ipei (Attention+respect+lay > it on me, bub!) would have gotten to the heart of the matter. None of > this distracting stuff about shopping and movies. I'd be interested in > seeing someone write up this dialog with a minimum of non-attitudinals > might be used. Probably the words "do", "ca prulamdei" and "ne'i le > gusta" would be needed for the explanation, but the entire rest of the > communicative exchange could (and probably should) take place at the > attitudinal level. Care to try, Colin? Others? I could use such an > example for the attitudinal paper revision that I'll shortly be working > on. That is fascinating. I am well aware that I haven't got but a tiny fraction of the possibilities of UI yet (though I am immediately sure that your glossing some of them with "cu'i" and "nai" and others with "nai" only reflects a limitation in English not Lojban - I don't think "coicu'i" was in the cmavo list), and your suggestions above are lovely to think about. HOWEVER - I get into problems with your suggestion as other than a literary device. I don't believe many people will ever use some of the 'negative' attitudinals - and certainly not two guys talking in the street. Are you seriously supposing that the sort of person who goes into a sulk, whose entire body language and gesture belies his insistent "I'm OK", will suddenly start verbalising the feelings which he is probably not even admitting he has? kolin