.i ki'e ki'e ki'e
Original: n00b translation request
Gloss: low-expertise translation-result thing-requested
Lojban: {to'e certu ke xelfanva selcpedu} -gejyspa
that's just what I needed.
I guess I'm really requesting a {xelfanva} and not a {nunfanva}. If I did, everyone on the mailing list might heed my request and undertake {nunfanva}, but then not give me the result!
...On the other hand, in the name of brevity, I suppose that {to'e certu ke fanva cpedu} should be sufficient, right?
--I mean, it's perhaps a malglico convention that we expect a title to describe the message's content, as I did (i.e. "[this message is a] translation request")
as opposed to it's role (i.e. "[this message is a] translate-type-of-requester")
...and I like brevity. So, unless I've made another mistake in the above assumptions, should I have any more n00b translation requests in the future, I'll choose my favorite wording {.i nalcertu ke fanva cpedu}
ki'e mu'o mi'e ku'us
...actually, on second thought, no. .i na mu'o.
I think my choosing to add "n00b" before "translation request" is not really a vested statement about consummate lojbanitry, which calls into my mind needless questions about defining the role of "expertise" in answering my query.
Instead I think it's an artifact of humility in public discourse, as a way of asserting that *any* attempt at translation is welcome. And anyhow, I could learn something from a non-master who looks at the problem right.
Since I can't find an attitudinal for "welcoming," I can settle with {ga'icu'i} 'as equals' for the feeling I'm looking for.
So, until next {.i ga'icu'i fanva cpedu},
ki'e mu'o mi'e ku'us
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 22:46, Luke Bergen
<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
ahh, I always forget that the translation result is x5 of fanva. {fanva} kind of breaks the mold of lojban words that if it sounds normal to say the english "the ____" then the x1 is probably "x1 is a _____ with blah blah done by blah blah etc..." (e.g. {gerku}, {cukta}, {mukti} etc...}. I always want to use it like: {x1 is a translation of work x2 from source language x3 into target language x4 translated by x5} or something like that.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Oren <
get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
> The two sentences below were not my doing! These were the proposed earlier
> in the thread by Pierre Abbat and Luke Bergen, respectively.
>
> Both contain a "sel" prefix, which I know has something to do with a "second
> conversion," but in this context, I can't find an explanation for why it's
> necessary-- we're just making a tanru right? I've skimmed both CLL and
> level 0. If someone can help me understand why 'sel-' is added to these, I
> would be very grateful!
>
> mu'omi'e .ku'us.
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 00:01, Pierre Abbat <
phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
>>
>> > 1. *.i nalcertu ke fanva selcpedu
>> > .i lo to'e certu selfanva bo cpedu*
>> >
>> > Can someone explain or point me to where I can learn about why adding
>> > 'sel' is necessary?
>>
>> I think you're confusing the place structures of "cpedu" and "preti". lu
>> ma
>> zasti? li'u preti zo'e mi do .iku'i mi cpedu lu ko ga'orgau le canko li'u
>> do.
>
(translator-requester)", since a cpedu is someone who requests
something. Since you were translating "a novice translation request"
you wanted "selcpedu", the thing being requested, not "cpedu" the
requester. Similarly, "lo to'e certu fanva bo cpedu" would mean a "a
novice (translator-requester)", whereas "lo to'e certu selfanva bo
cpedu" means a novice (translated-from requester), since a fanva is
one who translates, but a selfanva is what they are translating.
Although arguably, both of these are wrong, at it really should be,
IMO "to'e certu ke nunfanva selcpedu" or "to'e certu ke xelfanva
selcpedu" since you are requesting either an event of translating
(the first version) or the a translation result (the second version).
--gejyspa