Message-Id: <199309100001.AA02895@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1993 20:00:36 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: The Terrifying Adventure of the Windmills.2
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

> #no'i la donkixotes goi ko'a e la santcopansas goi ko'e facki fi fo'a
> #goi cinoji'ivono bifymlo be va le srasu foldi
>
> I don't like this usage of {facki} with a blank x2 selbri; I'd prefer it
> filled in in the seltanru, as {stufa'i} or {zasfa'i}. But that's just my
> personal beef.

I guess you mean {zatfa'i}? I don't think {stufa'i} is what I want. You're
right that facki by itself may be too loose. I'll change it to {zatfa'i}
(Another advantage is that I get rid of the {fi})


> {cinoji'ivono} is not how {ji'i} was intended to be used
> (though it may become so; John?); {ji'i} is meant to be followed by the
> one number it approximates. "About 40" = {ji'ivono}. How would you say
> "30 to 40"? I suppose {vei cino bi'o vono ve'o bifymlo}.

I won't change it to that. I may use {ji'icimu}. The original says "some 30
or 40", rather than "30 to 40". I had first written {ji'icinoji'ivono}, but
it seemed much too heavy.

>
> #        be'ucu'i le su'u le selfunca ca'o gidva le mi'o cuntu cu zabna
> #        zmadu le su'u mi'o pu'i pacna
>
> {funca} relates a lucky event and a lucky person; it is not "luck". Also,
> your jufra x2 is unnecessarily abstracted. I propose: {be'ucu'i le su'u
> le kamzanfunca ca'o gidva le mi'o cuntu cu zabna zmadu ro le mi'o pu'i
> se pacna}

I don't like very much {le kamzanfunca} for "Fortune", but you are right,
I had misinterpreted the x2 of {funca}. What about {le dimri'a}?


>
> #        i va le nu facki fi ji'iza'uso'u cilce brabracrida kei do viska
> #        doi pendo po'u la santcos le pu'o se damba be mi
>

I don't know why I left it as {ji'iza'uso'u}, I had some trouble in
saying "some thirty or more", and somehow the 30 was left out. Does
{ji'iza'ucino} say that? It doesn't seem completely right.


> Why {va}? I don't know what sumtcita is appropriate, but it isn't {va}.
> {fau}, maybe, or {ba'o}.

Yes, there is something wrong, but {va} has to be involved. The problem is
that it is difficult to say what is the location of {le nu viska} and of
{le nu facki}. New attempt:

i do viska doi pendo po'u la santcos le va ji'iza'ucino cilce brabracrida
poi te facki no'u le pu'o se damba be mi

>
> #        i ca'a se cafne le nu le ri so'o birka cu ki'otre li piso'aci
>
> What is frequent is that their arms are 300 m wide? Are you sure you're
> not using {cafne} in some other sense?

No, it is often the case that they have arms almost two leagues long. (I
shortened it to kilometers, and for some reason changed 2 to 3, but I think
the {pi} is wrong. I don't know whether {so'are} works, can this be less than
2 but more than 1?
I thought there might be a difference between {piso'are} and {so'apire}
Maybe the best is {so'arepi} ?


>
> #        i i'ecu'i xu do terpa paunai
>
> I'm not happy with this marking of the rhetorical question. How about,
> instead, {xupe'i} or {dai.e'enai}?

I don't understand {xupe'i}, but {dai.e'enai} is perfect!

>
> #i na'e jundi le ko'e krixa kajde be fi le nu le pu'o se gunta cu
> #bifymlo gi'enai brabracrida
>
> Sancho is the {kajde}; maybe, in a way, his cries are too, but I'd feel
> much more comfortable with {jdeselsku} (of which the {se kajde} is either
> x4 or x5, depending on whether you keep the {ve cusku} place.)

Should that be the {te kajde}? And it wouldn't be a {selsku} if you drop the
{ve cusku}, like with {jdaselsku}, right?

In any case, the x1 of {kajde} is confusing. Is x1 consciously warning
x2, or is it only a claim about the warning, thus if x1 is a person, he
could be inadvertently warning x2. If it is the first, then I don't
understand how an event can warn x2 of anything, if it's the second, then
I think the phrase is fine as it is, especially with the krixa in front.
I suppose this is related to the sumti raising stuff.

>
> #        le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai tolvri je palci danlu
>
> I just have to say that, though unintentionally, this sounds *hysterical*
> in Lojban!

Why? Please explain.

>
> #        i za'upa le nobli do na gunta
>
> At least one nobleman is *not* attacking you? Huh?
>

Not more than one knight attacks you.
I wanted "it is but a single knight who attacks you".

I now think that {papo'o le nobli do gunta} may be better. (Although the
"not more than one" is closer to the Spanish.


> #i ko'a darxi le molki le xarci le balre noi tsali se muvdu le brife
> #ja'e le nu po'irgau le xarci gi'e falgau le xirma e le xirselma'erno'i
> #noi carna re'o le foldi
>
> I think you mean {ku'o ja'e} rather than {ja'e}, though it's hard to be
> sure.
>

Both make sense, but the one I have seems to agree with the original.
Here's an English translation: "... giving a thrust at the wing, which was
whirling at such speed that his lance was broken into bits, and both horse
and horseman went rolling over the plain ..."


> #        i xu mi le mi nobli pu cusku le du'u ko traji pensi le nu zukte
>
> {le du'u} is not a direct quote, so you can't use {ko} inside it. Say {ri
> .ei} instead of {ko}. Also this doesn't seem the way to handle the rhetorical
> question. {ba'anai} or {ju'o} will do.
>
{ju'o} is good.

Isn't the obligation of the {.ei} on the speaker's part?


> #        i xu go'i fi le du'u fo'a ca'a bifymlo noi ka'e na'e se djuno
> #        le po'o se stedu co vasru be fo'a
>
> I can't interpret {le po'o se stedu co vasru be fo'a}; it seems a reference
> to his only skull (?)

I agree that the phrase is a bit obscure. The English translation says:
"... a fact which only one who had other mills of the same sort in his head
could fail to see."

I would now change {fo'a} to {la'e fo'a}

>
> #        i ka'u le jamna cuntu ka'e binxo semau ro le drata
>
> {binxo}? "Change" is the concept you're talking about, isn't it?
>
Yes, "the affairs of war are more than any other subject to change."


> #        i ca le famfa'o le tolka'erselylacri je palci na snada le nu
> #        fapro le mi dakyxa'i vrude
>
> {mulno} might be better than {fanmo}, and {certu} than {vrude}

Yes, and no.

{mulno} is definitely better. Maybe {le romai mulno}.

But it is the virtue of his sword that will triumph.

>
> #        ba fasnu du'o le cevni
>
> {.i'a}

Does {.i'a} mean "amen"? It's a good answer to {ba fasnu du'o le cevni} :)

>
> Well written and idiomatic, though I'd have preferred a few (quite a few
> actually :) more attitudinals.

Well, I'm not a big fan of attitudinals. They're ok in small doses, but I
prefer to avoid them if they don't add anything significant to the meaning.
Mi attitude :) may change as I learn them more.


co'o mi'e xorxes