Message-Id: <m0qO9vK-000022C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 1994 22:25:43 +1000
Reply-To:     Nick NICHOLAS <nsn@VIS.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Nick NICHOLAS <nsn@VIS.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: New to Lojban
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199407130955.26800@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU> from "Logical Language
              Group" at Jul 13, 94 05:52:29 am
Content-Length: 8923
Lines: 201

Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Logical Language Group jay'?

Now, I've been overdosing on hard-core linguistics the past two weeks, so
expect the following to meander quite a bit.

=BO> 1) Though lojban is more a linguistic exercise than a tongue intended for
=BO> everyday speech, is there a "Conversational Lojban" primer.
=Well, I wouldn't call it just a linguistic exercise - sounds too much like
=we don't intend that anyone ever actualy USE the thing.  In order to be
=useful for linguistics research (at least for the linguists to accept it as
=such) it BY DEFINITION has to be used/useful for everyday speech.

I heartily agree. It is the wrong attitude to take, to think that Lojban
can't do all the shitwork of everyday conversation. The funny thing is, I've
shifted over the years from being a formalist, fascinated by what Lojban
can do (and there is a beauty to that), to being a functionalist, fascinated
by what it isn't *designed* to do (non-formal semantics (cognitive, prototype,
etc.), pragmatics, discourse structure), and seeing how people get around
*that*.

In fact, given how much Lojban is committed to formal semantics, I think the
most important lesson it has to teach us is not how formal semantics describes
language, but how it fails to. As I've maintained ever since I learnt the
language (must be three years now. And it made a linguist out of me. Wow...),
in many of its avowed aims, Lojban will probably fail. And therein will lie
its greatest success.

That's just me, of course. The community as a whole seems to me friendlier
towards formal approaches.

[Lojbab, as usual, argues his points cogently]

=BO> 2) Lojban seems to be a rather terse language (I like that!).  Do you have
=BO> any idea how many syllables it takes to translate an English passage of
=BO> say 100 syllables into lojban?  Far prefer lojban to Esperanto, which
=BO> seems to me very verbose and exhausting for even the simplest utterances.

Um. Um... Well, as an Esperantist, Lojbanist, *and* Klingonist, I'm not sure
I can agree. At all. Lojbab mentioned I'd started on "To be or not to be"
in Lojban (I'm translating the entire work into Klingon); this is how far
I've gotten. See what you make of this:

Klingon (Nicholas 1994)

taH pagh taHbe'. DaH mu'tlheghvam vIqelnIS.
quv nuq? yabDaq San qu' cha pu' je SIQ'a'?
pagh, Sengmey bIQ'a' SuvmeH, nuHmey Suq'a',
'ej Suvmo' rInmoH'a'? Hegh. Qong --- Qong neH.
'ej Qongmo' tIq 'oy', wa'SaD Daw''e' je
cho'nISbogh porghmaj rInmoHlaH net Har.

63 syllables.

(It continues xor it doesn't continue. Now I must consider this sentence.
What is honourable? Does he endure in the brain the phasers and torpedoes of
Fierce Fate?
Xor, does he obtain arms to fight an ocean of troubles,
and end them because he fought them? He dies. He sleeps --- he merely sleeps.
And because he sleeps, one believes he can finish the heart pain
and the one thousand revolts that our bodies must succeed to.)

English (Shakespeare 1601)

To be or not to be? That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
and by opposing end them. To die. To sleep,
no more. And by that sleep to say we end
the heartache and the thousand natural shocks
that flesh is heir to.

70 syllables.

Esperanto (Zamenhof 1894)

Cxu esti aux ne esti --- tiel staras
nun la demando: cxu pli noble estas
elporti cxiujn batojn, cxiujn sagojn
de la kolera sorto, aux sin armi
kontraux la tuta maro da mizeroj
kaj per la kontrauxstaro ilin fini?
Formorti --- dormi, kaj nenio plu!
Kaj scii, ke la dormo tute finis
doloron de la koro, la mil batojn,
heredon de la korpo.

105 syllables.

(To be or not to be --- that's how the question
now stands. Is it nobler
to endure all the strikes, all the arrows
of angry fate, or to arm oneself
against the whole sea of miseries
and to finish them by opposing?
To die away --- to sleep, and nothing else!
And to know, that the sleep has totally ended
the sorrow of the heart, the thousand beatings,
the inheritance of the body.)

Modern Greek (Rotas 1938; free verse)

Na 'nai kaneis h na mhn einai --- auto ein' to zhthma;
ti 'nai sto pneuma anwtero, na upofereis
petries kai sa"ities axreias tuxhs, h
na pairneis ta opla enantia s' ena pelao basana
ki antixtupwntas na tous dineis telos? Qanatos, ---
upnos, kai tipot' allo; ki an m' auton ton upno
pauoume ths kardias ton pono kai tis xilies
laxtares, fusikh klhronomia ths sarkas, ...

111 syllables.

(Should someone be or not be --- that is the issue.
What is higher in the spirit, for you to suffer
the throwing of stones and arrows by wretched fate, or
to take weapons against a sea of torments
and hitting back, to give them an end? Death ---
sleep, and nothing else. And if with that sleep
we cease the pain of the heart and the thousand
desires, the natural inheritance of flesh...)

Lojban (Nicholas 1994)

.i pu'o zasti .ei xu .i di'u ra'i preti
.i xu leza'i renvi lei dakfu .e lei cecla
pe le gutkusru dimna cu vudmau lenu damba
le xamsi be loi raktu gi'e mulstigau ri
ki'u lemu'e bradi .i morsi je ca sipna
.i sipna .a'anaicai .i zo'e jinvi di'e
.i ki'u lenu sipna ca'o leza'i morsi
cu mulgau lei nuncnicro .e ki'o rarna jenca
noi .ei le ma'a rectu cu cedra

121 syllables.

(Is it that one should live until? That sentence is a question most importantly.
Is the state of surviving the knives and projectiles
of attacking-cruel Fate more virtuous than fighting
the sea of troubles and complete-ceasing them
because of the point-event of being an opponent? One dies and simultaneously
sleeps.
One sleeps --- really not worth attention. One thinks the following.
Because of sleeping during the state of death,
one can complete the emotional-aching and one thousand natural shocks
which our meat must inherit.)

=1. Almost all Lojban these days is translations, usually from English or
=from
=ideas originally expressed in English.  Almost always, a translation will
=be longer than the original, regardless of the languages, because the source
=language will have some things that must be paraphrased in the target
=language.  Only rarely in translating (and usually only with the best
=translators) does a given source language expression have an obvious and more
=terse equivalent in the target language.

True, within certain parameters. You yourself have admitted that Chinese
will tend to be shorter than Russian, ceteris paribus. The translationism
of artificial languages is, of course, a Bad Thing, but being one of its
prime benefitees, I'm not sure what to do with it.

=3. Being logically explicit and unambiguous, is prone to require more words
=than being ambiguous.  (Proof by assertion, but I hope this is intuitive.)
=Try "everybody loves somebody" vs.  For every x, there is a y such that x
=loves y".

It will be *extremely* interesting to see whether people stand for this in
practice in Lojban, which, by natlang standards, can be rather pedantic ---
much more so in the aspects of the language the beginner doesn't get to see,
like non-raising and marking of metonymy.

=English itself is a particularly terse language as syllable count goes.
=When you take an English song, with only a few syllables per line,
=and try to fit Lojban words to it, you have to put several words per
=beat.  Iambic pentameter is flowery in English, but most Lojban needs that
=many syllables in order to martch a rhythm and convey a meaning.

Which is in fact the whole point of what I included above. In fact, I disagree
with Lojbab. I think Shakespearean pentameter is often economical (not always,
granted), and that Lojban pentameter is simply too short to do it justice.
For this reason, I did what Esperanto poets *should* do more often when
translating from English (they don't, which makes their translations sound
telegraphese): I use an alexandrine (dedum dedum dedum, dedum dedum dedum),
which gives you four extra syllables per line (and a bit more metrical freedom).

=6.  Lojban speakers tend to WANT to be more precise and exact in what they say.
=There are cases where something is perfectly clear in a short form, but is
=elaborated to make sure that PRECISELY the meaning intended is understood.
=People have said that translating meaning-rich English (Nick Nicholas is
=reportedly working on Hamlet's Solilioquy) is particularly difficult into
=Lojban, because people aren't happy with vagueness.

Oh. Well, actually, I'd be *very* interested in people comparing the level of
semantic explicitness of the various translations above. I suspect that, both
in Klingon and Lojban, I don't bother with such preciseness, because I
recognise that such preciseness would make the translation unpoetic, illegible
--- and seven volumes long. But like I say, I'd appreciate others' comments.
But that avoidance of vagueness is certainly a Lojbanic trait. I'm just not
sure if my snippet of Hamlet manifests it.

Nick.