From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Wed Mar 25 21:42:55 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 25 Mar 92 21:42 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA03623; Wed, 25 Mar 92 14:16:59 EST Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA25193; Wed, 25 Mar 92 13:51:13 -0500 Message-Id: <9203251851.AA25193@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9891; Wed, 25 Mar 92 13:50:35 EST Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf012) id 0357; Wed, 25 Mar 92 13:49:08 EST Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 15:33:32 GMT Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: A fairy tale X-To: iad@cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: ; from "Ivan A Derzhanski" at Mar 24, 92 2:28 pm Status: RO Continuing the exchange with Ivan: > > > > > > > > lu le nolraixli nega'u le dembi li'u > > > > > > {ga'u}, `up from '? Does this work for static `on'? > > > > I don't know how else to do it! > > How about {gapru} ({le nolraixli poi gapru le dembi})? I wasn't sure at the time, but glancing at the tense paper (s. 8) it seems to me that the 'up from' in the definition of ga'u has misled us into thinking of movement - unless you use "mo'i", it means "the direction from the reference to the modificand is upward". > If this ambiguity is regular, that is, if it is not by > chance that English uses the same word, then we're in trouble, because > the disjunctive concept won't be easy to put into Lojban. But it is rarely necessary to do so. When translating into a foreign language, you sometimes cannot (or have to work hard to) get a precise rendering - especially if the word in question has idiomatic uses or a number of overlapping meanings. Different strategies will be appropriate in different contexts. Sometimes a precise and lengthy rendering, even translating the uncertainty as an alternation; sometimes a choice, arbitrary or not, among the possible meanings; and sometimes a relatively vague term which preserves as much of the meaning as the translator thinks relevant or useful. I remember an example Whorf quoted from Pawnee, a sentence he translated as "I clean it out with a ram-rod" (referring to a gun). His analysis of the Pawnee was, if memory serves, "I interior;moving-place;with-a-tool;it" A comprehensible English translation of this is anyway holistic, but both inserts and omits detail. If others produce Lojban that renders the original with great semantic precision, I am quite content - though I reserve the right to criticise if I think the result does not convey the intended meaning, or indeed if I think it is inelegant. But equally I wish to translate according to my own canons, which tend towards 1) preservation of the structure of the original 2) exploration and exploitation of the resources of Lojban 3) willingness to discard semantic precision when I judge it inessential and awkward to render. Of course I sometimes vary these: my Quine translation works hard to preserve semantic precision, because that is the nature of the text. And I welcome criticism (this discussion is not a dispute - I am glad that our successive comments have helped me to articulate these personal canons). > > > The precision you suggest is not necessary here. Even if the > > prince is in fact the son of a king (as it later appears > > he is) that does not mean that you have to say so. > > I fail to see why you would want not to, given that it takes no extra > labour; that is, why you want to keep the imprecision of the original. I refer to the above. In general, I regard a longer lujvo as "extra labour". > > > Good thought about the pronoun. I hate "goi" - it always seems > > intrusive, particularly in a translation (as opposed to an original > > composition). > > Not in my eyes. I love {goi}. Three short syllables - {goi qo'w} - > save you a lot of repetition afterwards, particularly in original > composition (as opposed to a translation; but still you'll find that > many referential noun phrases have no particularly literary value and > will profit from being replaced by a pronoun). I agree retrospectively - anaphora is wonderful, and I use "ri" and "ra" a lot. Indeed, I use "ko'a" etc. a lot - but the initial assignment I always find intrusive, particular when there are other relatives, and you need "zi'e" as well. kolin