[lojban-beginners] Re: My first work of translation

[Matt Arnold <mattarn@123.net>]

ki'e xorxe

If I should say:
i do dasni du'i lo nu finpe cu dasni lo djacu fepri kei ti
You wear (as much as the event of [fish wear gill]) it.
So far so good, but the major objective of speaking this clause is to describe the two "dasni" as equally effortless. I only included "du'i" to apply to "secau troci." (Instead of "le secau troci," should I say "toicau"?) Can I say this?
i do toicau dasni du'i lo nu finpe cu toicau dasni lo djacu fepri kei ti

Why "lo djacu fepri," which seems to be just one gill, instead of "loi djacu fenpi"? I thought it was a way to pluralize things.

Why "lo" instead of "le"? Does "the really is" serve to accomodate dogmatic philosophical assertions of absolute and unquestionable Truth from the perspective of an omniscient narrator? Am I allowed to forgo use of "the really is" entirely, to acknowledge the limitations of my senses? Or have I misunderstood this?

Would "prenrludu" be as easy to figure out as "prenrludaitu"? Or should I just use "fapmi'ipli" or even "minji fapro prenu"?

You're right that the poem turns his "connectedness" in the sense of well-informed into a metaphoric image of "connectedness" in the sense of synthesis between man and machine. But "contemplating your connectedness" is the transition point in the poem. I specified the well-infomed connectedness "ka tavla jorne" (the property of talking type of joinedness) because the poet was thinking about this innocuous thing when it transformed into a spooky thing. The fear is explained in the rest of the poem.

-la epcat

_______________________________________________________
Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com