Re: [lojban-beginners] A few sentences

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Erik Natanael Gustafsson <eriknatanaelgustafsson@gmail.com> wrote:

You have nothing to fear. (I had difficulties with this one, how do you reference the concept of an emotion?)=
.i lo krinu .ii na zasti
.i lo se terpa be do na zasti
.i lo se terpa pe do cu claxu lo krinu

You really can't use attitudinals except to express that you are feeling some emotion. You'll need to use {terpa} necessarily. The second one seems sort of close, except it does exist in *some* sense, because you're talking about it. Maybe {lo se terpa be do na zasti fi lo vajni}: what they fear exists but not in a sense that matters.

The music that they were playing was a part of a bigger work. =
.i le zgike poi ra pu zgipli ku'o pagbu le se finti poi bramau

This is a bit redundant. You could just say {le [pu] te zgipli [be fi ra] cu pagbu le se finti noi bramau}. I also see no particular need for {le} here necessarily, though I suppose there's some style to be said.

On his way to the store, Erik fell on a marble. =
.i la .erik. pu farlu ri'a lo bolci be lo rokci vau ca'o lonu ra klama le zaisle

Two problems, both fairly minor. First a cause is an event, so you need either {ri'a tu'a ...} or to actually spell out "because of an event of stepping on a marble". Second, when you use a ZAhO like {ca'o} as a tag, what you get is that the outer event is assigned the contour and is said to be simultaneous with the other event. That is, {broda ca'o ko'a} === {ca'o broda ca ko'a}. The falling is probably not very continuative, so you can just use {ca}.

Accompanied by the whisper of the trees, I dance. =
.i po'o lo se smasku be lei tricu cu kansa lonu mi dansu

kansa1 and kansa2 are generally objects, where kansa2 satisfies kansa3 and kansa1 is present (usually but not always also satisfying kansa3). So you should have {.... kansa mi lo ka [ce'u] dansu}. What "..." should be depends somewhat on your stance on metaphors.

The ink will soon shine red by the life-giving force of the words. =
.i le xinmo cu bazi xunre gusycai ri'a lo nunji'e bapli pe lei valsi

I think this is OK.

When the bus left the stop, he kissed me tenderly in his thoughts. =
.i iu. ra cinba mi ne'i lo menli vau ca'o lonu lo sorprekarce cu cliva

The {iu} is not actually translating anything from the original, though it's appropriate. I wouldn't say {ne'i lo menli} (it comes off as literal in Lojban). I'd probably spell out "imagined kissing me tenderly" or something to that effect instead.

The door locks itself automatically. =
.i lo stela po le ganlo cu zmiku

{pe} is fine, as it usually is. {po} is a little weird with an entity that can't actually possess something. Otherwise I think this is OK.

With only one hand, Klas won the whole tournament. =
.i la klas. pu jinga fo ro le terjvi se pi'o po'o pa lo xance

This has a very subtle problem having to do with quantifier scope, which is that as written, the hand he used to win each part of the tournament could depend on the tournament. That is, it says that he used one hand in each part, but it does not say that the hand was the same in all of the parts. If you just move the {ro} inside the article, you remove this. I would probably also move the {pa} inside the article although this is somewhat of a stylistic choice.

I am grateful for any corrections!

.i fi'i co'o do'u .i mi'e la latro'a mu'o