From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Feb 3 16:12:03 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 3 Feb 92 16:12 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA04230; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:52:09 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA08072; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:49:56 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA06653; Mon, 3 Feb 92 14:08:11 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA12893; Mon, 3 Feb 92 13:24:41 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA13337; Mon, 3 Feb 92 12:00:13 -0500 Message-Id: <9202031700.AA13337@relay2.UU.NET> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 7267; Mon, 03 Feb 92 11:58:54 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7599; Mon, 03 Feb 92 11:49:54 EST Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 22:54:29 +1100 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn Subject: Olympic article X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Cc: nsn@ee.mu.oz.au To: John Cowan Status: RO Of Colin's comments on the Olympic Germanos article, and my thanks for them: >> mi na certu le se zajbrnatleta .iku'i mi co'a jimpe lenu mi poi xelso cu >> no'e snada tu'a le la olimpik. nunjvi pevi la tokios. isa'unai mi nu'o zmadu >> zo'epeca'aku leni snada >"ku'i"? where's the contrast? Thnk you for pointing this out. I suppose what I really need is {.iseji'unaibo} ("The above is not a logical basis for that...") >I would say "mi noi xelso", but there is room for dispute. I would also >quantify that particular "mi" (as it has a different referent from the >previous "mi"s in the line), but I'm not sure how. Actually, that is the job of the {poi} in {mi poi xelso}. I see no essential distinction in identificationally qualifying {mi} by {pe} or {poi}. The "I/we" such that it is Greek (remember, this is {poi}, not {voi}). >I didn't understand "zo'epeca'aku" until I read the gloss. "le ca'a >zasti"? Maybe. What I wanted, and am not afforded grammatically, is {le ca'a ku} = = {le ca'a broda}. Helsem does the same mistake: {le pu do}, where {do pe pu ku}, and often {do pe puku ge'u}, is needed. > .iti'e le mulno nizyji'a cu te zmadu mi le >> gugdrkore'a kuce'o le gugdrnafganistana kuce'o le gugdrkenia kuce'o le >> gugdrtrinidada kuce'o le xanto denci xaskoi gugde .iku'i mi zmadu .u'a le >> gugdrlixtenctaine .i lenu go'i cu pluka nuzba .i zmadu pluka fau le nu'o nu >> le gugdrlixtenctaine cu se nunjvi la olimpik >The whole paragraph (in fact most of the article) needs a load more >attitudinals (which is not to belittle your choices when you have used >them). You are right, and {fu'e} would go a long way. But can you envisage anyone saying "well, we weren't REALLY exceeded by the Ivory Coast, I'm just saying"? I think the {ti'e} suffices. On the other hand, {da'i} will replace {nu'o} in counterfactual {nu} - thanks for resolving that one for us. >> .ipamai le brife cu to'e mapti mi .i ca ronu lomi prenu cu bajryjvi fi le > mitre >> beli panono gi'onai pi'ejvi fi le nunclapi'e gi'onai re'ojvi fi tu'a le > kilga'a >> kei ru snada lenu le brife cu to'e mapti .i le fange noroi go'i li'a .iza'a >> le fange kuce le brife cu mabla ke tugni jasysnu .ije ri roroi sarji ra .isu'a >> le brife cu jarco tai roda lenu ckaji lo stodi ka xelxei >The second sentence needs some location (either temporal or at Tokyo) - >I read it as a universal "every time our people run etc". Also you >haven't got the anticipative of the English - how about "pupu'o"? You mean, instead of {ca} for {ronu li'o bajryjvi li'o}? Hm, maybe. I don't think Germanos meant the phrase to be restricted to Tokyo, but to international competition. I think this a good time for {fu'eba'u} >"gi'onai" etc. I've often been unhappy about the spurious precision of >people using ".onai" rather than ".a", and this time I'm sure of it. Curses, right you are. You are so right, I had to take a day's break to cool off :) {gi'a} it is, NOT because it's shorter than {gi'onai} in approximating "one of" (I'd still go with gi'onai in such a case), but because Carl Lewis exists, and GIhA says nothing about tense on its own (gi'e can pragmatically be taken to mean gi'ebazibo, but with gi'a I can't see that). Thus one can either/or/and jump - run, not necessarily at the same time. >".ije ri roroi sarji ra" - does "sarji" have this meaning of "support" >or a physical meaning? I don't think it can have both. Given the excruciatingly established dictum {e'osai ko sarji la lojban} (A dictum which should make Lojbab use {sai} rather than {cai}, which I find histrionic (his e'ocai translates to me as "I beg you, I'm on my knees, pleeeease!")), there is a strong case for the "metaphorical" meaning, whatever the intent of Lojban Central at the time. >.i tu'a mi se fuzme lenu le bajrystu cu cilmo .e >> lenu le bajrystu na cilmo .e lenu brife .e lenu na brife .e lenu carvi .e lenu >> solgu'i .e lenu dilnu .e lenu puzi citka le dukse kei .e lenu puzi citka noda >> kei .e lenu puze'u na cpacu lo xatra kei .e lenu na puzi jinga fo tu'a le >> jmaboi nunjvi cundinkei .iji'a mi se xlali nu'i lenu jivna pu le dedmidju kei >> ki'u lenu pu'i camcikna nu'u.e lenu jivna ba le dedmidju kei ki'u lenu ca >> djarunta .isu'a mi se xlali lonu jivna .i lei puzi se cusku cu so'omei lei >> velci'i poi caza se cusku .iku'i mi va'o lenu xamgu to jo'u xlali toi djica cu >> ka'e facki lo drata >"ki'u lenu pu'i camcikna" - I think there's a negative missing here. No. I am in the "until" of wide-awake = I am not yet wide awake. That's how I interpret {pu'i}. >"lei puzi se cusku cu so'omei lei velci'i poi caza se cusku" - the >repetition is inelegant, and doesn't translate the English. How about >"se tirne" for the last? Ack >"iku'i" again. This time, though, not necessarily to do with {ji'u}. MAybe {ji'a}? >"va'o lenu xamgu djica" - in circumstances of choosing well - I don't >understand that to be "good will". "leka xamgu djica" would be better, >but still not satisfactory. I don't agree with either a cut&dry disctinction between {nu} and {ka}, or that xamgu djica isn't adequate for good will. >Football: I suggest "boltikpa" x1 plays football against x2. Then a >football match is either "nu boltikpa" or "nu boltikpajvi". A football >is strictly "boltipyboi", but normally "tipyboi" will do. Myself, I'd say boltipyjvi, nu boltipyjvi, nunboltipyjvikezboi = tipyboi. So be it noted. >boltikpa ca'i la sokr {ca'i}, which I think is wrong anyway (one does not have authority over actions in lojban to my knowledge; it sounds to me this is really the modal for {curmi}) is not the most obviously right choice here. I'd prefer {ja'i}, by rule. >> .imu'ubo zemai nu darlu tu'a le tutrkipro .i leimi zajbrnatleta ca le >> cabna tcini cu.ei so'iroi carmi jundi .iti'e pu lenu co'a clapi'ejvi fa >> loi drapre .eji'a lo brito kei le zajyctu cu to'ecla ve notci fi le kerlo >> be lemi prenu lu ko no'e carmi tu'a le brito li'u .iseki'ubo ge le brito >> cu pamoi gi lemi prenu cu remumoi; >"nu darlu"? I should rate it as at least "nu damba". Slight slip (OK, not so slight) - but the original has simply "the Cypriot [thing]", which usually translates as "The Cyprus Question". Conflict is possible, but not, I suspect, necessary in political "Questions". If it is, then {dapysnu}, fine. >"tu'a le brito" - I read that as "don't be to excessively British-like", >and didn't understand. Very well, {tu'a le ritpre} >> .ibimai nu mi rolzda snada loi drata .i.eiro'apa'e mi na djica lenu snada >> roda .i mi jinga le la nobel. cnemu .i lemi prenu cu jinga lenu se cmene >> lu munje ke fetnalspe mebrai li'u .i.e'a lo fange cu jinga su'oda >> .isomai nu seltru le gugdrturki,e vau.ua .ilenu go'i cu punai se cusku >> su'oda .ije mi gleki lenu mi pamoi le'i cusku be ra .i lenu seltru le >> gugdrturki,e cu fuzme je'u lo so'amei .ija'ebo .e'e fuzme le se lifri be mi >> beivi la tokios .ijonaili'a la tokios. fuzme le se lifri be mi beica lenu >> seltru le gugdrturki,e; >"le la nobel. cnemu .i lemi prenu" - I would prefer to quantify both >these sumti. Ack >"gugdrturki,e" - but it wasn't a gugde that ruled, and it wasn't Turkey. >I would use either "jectrxosmanli" (the Ottoman state) or "natmyturki,e" The reasonable question is, though, is it a good translation if we make the average Greek conscious of the Ottoman/Turkish distinction (most Greeks probably still dismiss it as apologist propaganda). Since I suspect "good" translation is not the primary intent of writing at this stage of the language, I think {jectrturki,e} reasonablish, but will accept {jectrxosmanli}. >> .i mi pensi le bajryjvi befi la maraton. beira'i le gugdrnetiopia be'o noi >> claxu leka jikca xaujdi kei ja'e lenu jinga re la olimpik. lamji nunjvi >> cnemu gi'ega'i se jamfu le lunbe caku .ije'u mi na zanru lenu lo se >> zajbrnatleta cu gubgau lei cfila be le cecmu jditai be levo'a jecta .i >> mi fau lenu loi se gugdrnetiopia cu claxu lo cutci cu.e'u se vencu ri gi'e >> dunda ri ra .ifaubo lo se gugdrnetiopia banai bajryjvi fi la maraton. >"lamji nunjvi cnemu" - didn't suggest "consecutive to me" - "simla'i" or >"porla'i" I take porla'i >"gubgau" - to me this is "publically acts" - I think you ast least want >a "kaz" in there - I would suggest "kazgubga'i" (quality of public >alter) Which brought me to the chilling realisation: all the factitives and pseudofactitives I've used (ctiri'a, sudri'a, sudgau) are probably more amenable to analysis with a {nun} in front. Compromise: make the pseudofactitive less pseudo: gubri'agau (-ri'agau, cause-act, as opposed to -ri'a, be a cause, is too long, but the only NLish factitive we've got (one, that is, with an agent rather than an action for an x1)). >> .i >> mi fau lenu loi se gugdrnetiopia cu claxu lo cutci cu.e'u se vencu ri gi'e >> dunda ri ra .ifaubo lo se gugdrnetiopia banai bajryjvi fi la maraton. >I have a lot of trouble interpreting .iBAIbo, so I'm not sure if this is >confusing or just whether I don't know how to read it. But I didn't get >the concessive sense of this. Hm. The {ifaubo} isn't explicitly concessive, I'll admit. What of {.iseja'ebo .au}? >> .imumai vi se cmima ro zajbrnatleta poi se gugde lo te nizyxa'u befi li >> za'ubipimuki'oki'o .ili'a le namcu no'u li bipimuki'oki'o cu curve snuti >> .i na srana lo steci gugde .i mi puzika'e cusku lu pare li'u .onai lu pamu > li'u >> .iku'i seja'e lenu mi cusku lu bipimu li'u cu.e'u za'ubipimuki'oki'omei >"le namcu li'o cu curve snuti"? Understandable, but not precise. Really >ought to have a "lenu" in there. {le nu cuxna le namcu}? I don't mind. I was going to argue for concrete sumti as x1s of snuti, but it's not worth it. >".i mi puzika'e" - again I don't get a counterfactual sense. "puzipu'o" >would be better, but I suspect that "da'i" is better still. I like neither of these (if you mean pu'i). pu'i is wrong, and da'i does not sound right in context. I think this is one occasion counterfactual {nu'o} can work. >what's wrong with ".e'u li 8.5,000,000"? Nix. So noted. >>.i mi ca'a vimcu le gugdrbrito .e le gugdrdotco >. . . >"ca'a"? This is all counterfactual - I don't know whether you can use >this in that context or not. I'm being loose. I meant {capu}. >> .iku'i mi [ji'u > > dinri .e lenu ra caku xalbo .e lenu caku na dukse citka ganse]>]>]>] cu.e'u > cmima >> le somoi >I had to put all the above grouping in to be sure, but I think your >".e"'s attach to the wrong place. Ack > That was fun! Glad to have been of service. What I'm wondering though, is: was it funny? Nick. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia. nsn@{munagin.ee|mullauna.cs}.mu.oz.au "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's number one killer" - Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie _______________________________________________________________________________