Message-Id: <199309111300.AA01788@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 1993 22:58:38 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: The Terrifying Adventure of the Windmills.2
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id> from "Jorge Llambias" at Sep 9, 93 08:00:36 pm
Status: RO

To Jorge Llambias respond I thus:

#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 would have gone for {dimpruxi}, but actually {le dimri'a} (or maybe
{la dimri'a}) is excellent.

#> #        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.

While it does sort of say it, I think {su'ocino} is quite adequate.

#> 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

That's OK, with one reservation: while this does parse correctly, I think
it would be more polite to say {zi'eno'u} rather than {no'u}.

#> #        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?

The reason I asked this is that, to me, this implies that the hands of them
all often *become* 300 m; the concept you're expressing, that the hands of
*many* of them are (always) 300 m, doesn't seem to me to be a {cafne} concept,
though I scarcely know what else it is.

#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} ?

Now that I know what you were saying... Hm. Maybe John would like to do a
Solomon on this. {rore} is "all 2 of them"; by analogy, {so'are} would be
"almost all of them, which is 2", rather than "almost all 2 of them";
the two numerals are taken to be equal. What you're doing here is expressing
two distinct numerals, and should really be translated as {so'aboi ci}.
Not {piso'aci}, which you can bet will be interpreted as {pi so'aci} (and
was how I interpreted it.)

#> #        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!

{xupe'i} is doing double work, saying both "are you?" and "I think you are!"

#> #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?

Yes, and... hm to your second point. I know what I went on the record as
saying about {jdaselsku} against you (that if it's a selsku, it must
have a velsku), but I'm becoming less and less convinced about this.

#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.

In other words, is warning an intrinscially intentional act, or not? I
do hope John or Lojbab are reading this, there's a lot of questions popping
up (but this always happens with Lojban text :) ).

#> #        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 suppose because of the way I was back-translating into English: "Grr!
Avoideth not, Un-welcome thou, evil and sinful beast!" Sounds wondrously
pompous. Ingenious and elegant Lojban, I must add.

#> #        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.

Nah. {su'epa} will do. ({na} is a dangerous negator to use, since it can
negate the predicate in all sorts of extreme and unanticipated ways. You
do need to make the assertion that, though not 2 knights are attacking, one
still is; otherwise, the Don may as well be saying "I come in peace".)
(Doesn't make sense for the Don to say "I come in peace", but Lojban is
a fragile language as far as implicature is concerned.)

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

I'll admit, before we had {dai}, we were doing all sorts of wierd things with
attitudinal deixis. Can {do .ei cliva} mean "You should go", rather than
"I should that you go"? I don't actually have that much of a problem with
it, but again I'll defer to any listening authorities.

#> #        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}

Hm again. Now that I know what you meant, I can't really say the translation
is wrong, but I would seek to make it less opaque, maybe using {pensi} or
{se sidbo} for {se stedu co vasru}. Part of the reason is that {po'o} (so
long resisted by the community --- it's not terribly formal-semantic, after
all) is still quite unfamiliar to me!

#> #        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."

In which case the appropriate selbri is surely {cenba}.

#> #        i ca le famfa'o le tolka'erselylacri je palci na snada le nu
#> #        fapro le mi dakyxa'i vrude

Now that I think about it, {ca le famfa'o} is doing discursive work, and
I think it more appropriate that a UI-word do the job. {su'a}?

#> #        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} :)

Heh. It actually means that your Sancho utterance doesn't really make
any sense without the {.i'a} embedded in it, making the bald statement a wish.
Or whatever it is.


##############################################################################
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Noth,      You are reading another .sig from
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Pein;     the NICK NICHOLAS .sig Factory. Mail
# Je lieber moecht ich im Himmel sein.     [nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au] for your
#    -- Des Knaben Wunderhorn, _Urlicht_   .sig suggestions. [Padding Space]