From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Sep 29 14:10:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 21:10:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 61670 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 21:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 21:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 21:10:15 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-31.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.31]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CAA3D54C for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:10:10 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] MELBI COI Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:11:48 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16228 xorxes > la and cusku di'e > > >Can you do any better than {cu se li'i rulmle ua}, given that the > >original is "(they) say (to me) 'what a beautiful flower!'"? > > (I think there's no "to me" in the original, they will just > say it.) Some versions have {mi diranno}. There is no canonical original version, which is one of the minor pleasures it holds for me. Any words are 'correct' as long as they approximate the basic meaning and fit the music. > Direct quotation seems out of the question, maybe just {cu xrula > melbi cusku ua}. Maybe {cu melbi xrula ganse ua}. > >Moving on to another song, am I right in thinking that "el pueblo > >unido" is (alas) {loi prenu ku poi pa mei} and {loi prenu poi pa mei} > >would in fact have very much the opposite meaning from what is > >intended? > > Right. "Unido" is more than {pamei} though, because it suggests > that it is the result of something (the result of uniting), not > just the present state. {poi ba'o pamei binxo}, I guess. Of course > it is not always possible to capture every nuance in a translation. Does "unido" mean that to you as a spanish speaker? Be#cause to me it seems that it is the state of being in union that makes it impossible to be conquered (or divided, in American). It doesn't seem to matter whether this state is the result of uniting. In English, en-participles are not necessarily resultative. --And.