[lojban-beginners] Re: le darlu

[Yuval Harel <yuvalh@hotpop.com>]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Jorge "Llambías 
<jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

> la iuvál cusku di'e
>
> [...]
> > .i ny. cusku lo'u
> > 	ki'e
> > le'u
> >
> > .i ny. nerkla le li pare ku kumfa
> > ==========================
> > Comments, anyone?
>
> Nice translation!
>
> {ku} is not the terminator for {li}, it is {lo'o}, and {boi} terminates 
> the number. Without eliding any terminators it would be
> {le li pareboi lo'o kumfa ku}. But in fact they are all elidable
> here, you can just say {le li pare kumfa}.
>
> Any reason why you use lo'u-le'u instead of lu-li'u?
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

Thanks for the comments!

The reason I've used {lo'u}-{le'u} is that there is some swearing later on 
in the sketch,
which I thought might translate nicely into incorrect Lojban. Using {lo'u}- 
{le'u} only around the incorrect quotes just doesn't seem right to me - I 
think that making them stand out disturbs the flow of the sketch and 
marking them before they appear somewhat spoils the effect. Is it wrong to 
apply {lo'u}-{le'u} to gramatically correct utterances?
If not, I don't see any reason to use {lu}-{li'u} in story contexts anyway.

I was quite surprised not getting any comments on some earlier parts of the 
translation,
which I had doubts about and still don't seem right to me. So I'll just ask 
about them
now...

1) "Good morning"
I didn't really know how to tackle this. The {a'o nu xamgu cerni} I've used 
still doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't it in fact say "[I am hopeful], 
something is an event of something being a good morning", which asserts 
that an event of good morning occured, occurs, or will occur, instead of 
wishing for it? Another option I thought of is using {a'o le xamgu cerni} 
or {a'o lenu xamgu cerni},
but that raises two quostions: Firstly, is this grammatical at all, though 
it contains
no selbri? And secondly, does it make sense to use {le} for a morning whose 
existence
is not asserted, only imagined?

2) {mi djica lenu mi darlu}. The {le} does not seem right for the same 
reason I've mentioned earlier - that the event of arguing does not (yet) 
exist. Using {lo} seems even worse in that respect (though the
English uses "a"). {le'e} seems appealing, since it refers to imaginary 
things, but the man does not say that he wishes the argument to be like 
other arguments he had - more probably having the best argument he had ever 
had would be at least somewhat satisfactory.

3) {le rinsa}
That's just "The greeter", isn't it? Is there anything better for 
"receptionist"?


ki'e

mu'o mi'e iuvál.