Message-Id: <9203200553.AA00751@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 1992 17:43:30 GMT
Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!pucc.Princeton.EDU!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      Re: A fairy tale
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "Ivan A Derzhanski" at Mar 6, 92 7:19 pm
Status: RO

Answering Ivan's comments on my text
> >
> >  lu le nolraixli nega'u le dembi li'u
>
> {ga'u}, `up from <direction modal>'?  Does this work for static `on'?

I don't know how else to do it! (and see Nick's not on "mo'i" below)

>
> >  lisri le norlainanla goi ko'a
>
> {nolrainanla}.  That is, `most noble lad'.  {nolraitrubre} would be
> more precise, but it is too long.  Pity we have no gismu for `monarch'.

Please join me in a campaign against precision. No look, there are times
for precision and times for its reverse. You are assuming that "prince"
means "son of a monarch", and indeed that is its 'canonical' meaning in
English; but
        1) It has had (and occasionally has) other meanings - why is the
                Prince of Liechtenstein not a king?
        2) 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.
                English happens to encode within the single word that
                relationship (and only ambiguously that he is immature,
                by the way, which I did choose to express in the
                Lojban), but it is for most purposes unnecessary, as
                well as probably impossible to translate all the
                specifications that are there in the English and leave
                out any that are not.
        3) As a more general theme, translations between languages that
                are not closely related often specify completely different
                portions of the total semantic content, just to make
                sense.
We can argue endlessly over the precise choice of selbri, and hurrah for
that!

>
> >  .i sa'e ge lo nolraixli cu raumei .ia
>
> <Belief!>?  Why?

You're right, I guess I meant certainty - I've forgotten the UI. I'm
still infected by old Loglan, where ".ia" meant certainty rather than
belief.
>
> >  .ile slabu nolraitru ki'u minde lenu le vorme cu karbi'o
>
> Er, I think {slabu} meant {to'e cnino}, not {to'e citno}.

I hope you're wrong.

>
> >  .i le bartu cu nolraixli
>
> Now it surely wasn't the case that the whole exterior was a princess.
> Or is it just my interpretation?  By the way, this is about the right
> place to assign a pronoun to her.

"le" and its congeners is always prey to wilful misinterpretation.
Good thought about the pronoun. I hate "goi" - it always seems
intrusive, particularly in a translation (as opposed to an original
composition).

>
> >  ni'o lu .ue  .i cipra .ai li'u se sevycu'u le slabu truspe
>
> Not <Surprise!>.  I'd suggest something from the {.ia} scale.  I'm not
> too fond of `dreamingly express' for `think', either.

Sorry, I meant "seircu'u"

>
> >  ni'o co'i le cerna cu preti fofo'a feleli'i fo'a capu sipna ge'ekau
>
> So just what does that {ge'ekau} do?

I think I meant "ge'ekaunai". I was trying to apply a principle I
deduced from "zo'ekaunai" - indirect question as to an indicator.

>
> >  le lujvo po'u zo cucyzbi cu satci te fanca fezoidy. Naesen paa
> >  Skoen dy.   .i mi nelci ledi'u bangrdanska tanru
>
> It is a good Danish tanru, but .uu it is a poor Lojban tanru.

ko cusku ledo krinu bedi'u pe'udoi .ivAn .i mi nelci ra nebau la lojban
ji'a

                co'omi'e kolin