[lojban-beginners] Re: coi .i.e'o pinka

[Sunnan <sunnan@handgranat.org>]

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/13/05, Sunnan <sunnan@handgranat.org> wrote:
>> 
>> .e'o ko xe pinka to xendo je dukti kusru toi le xelfanva to tolfa'o toi
>> ->  http://handgranat.org/Bran_Van_3000/Mama_Don't_Smoke
>>
>> Okay, well... we'll just start. 
>> Ready? 1, 2, 3, Go. 
>>
>> xamgu.y .i ma'a bazi cfari .i xu do bredi .i pa. re. ci. .imu'o 
>
> This is all very idiomatic, so there's hardly one right translation.
> Just a few comments:
>
> {ma'a} is I, you and others. I think we in this case "we" is {mi'o},
> the speaker and the people the speaker is addressing, nobody
> else.

I'm thinking the instrumentalists and the studio technicians, but (as
per your idea below), I'll probably drop the pronouns.

> {cfari} means that some event starts, not that someone starts
> to do something. That would be {cfagau} for example. Or you 
> could just say {cfari} "something will start" without any pronoun. 

Yeah, I'll ditch the pronoun, good idea.

> {pa re ci} is one hundred and twenty-three. You could say
> {i pa i re i ci}.

I'm thinking it's a count down for the rhythm. This is a song lyric
originally. I was thinking that maybe in lojbanistan, musicians say
one-hundred and twenty-three because it's got more rhythm than
"separate one separate two separate three".

> I don't know about {mu'o} there. Maybe {i pa i re i ci i ko}?  

I'm not sure. I kind've liked using the vocative there. jbofi'e gives
a warning for a standalone ko.

>> Mama, don't smoke that much dope. 
>>
>> .i.e'o doi mamta ko na dampli la'u du'e lo marna 
>
> "that much" is hard. Lojban is missing an amount deictic,
> as well as a manner deictic, or at least a general purpose
> deictic. I don't have a good alternative, but I would prefer
> something like {ko na dampli lo <large amount deictic> marna}

So, like:
.i.e'o doi mamta ko na dampli lo du'e marna
?

>> Don't you worry about me. 
>>
>> .i.o'u ko mi na xanka
>
> OK, or {dunku}.

I originally had .i.o'u mi na raktu ko, and xanka was a step up from
that, but I'll consider dunku.

>> I only get high about twice a day,  
>>
>> .i.o'u mi reroi marna gleki ti'u ro djedi 
>
> {ti'u} is for time of day, as in eleven forty-five.
>
> {ji'i re roi lo djedi} is "about twice a day".

I read lo djedi as that it could happen about two times any given day
- sunday one week, friday the next week, or something like that. I've
been going back and forth between lo and ro, I'd rather have "most" or
"usually" than *every*.

I'll put lo for now, as per your suggestion.

> You could use {do'a}, for "only/at most" here,
> though this is not (yet) standard usage.
> {do'a mi marna gleki ji'i re roi lo djedi}.

I'll think about this, maybe I will.

>> it helps to keep my blues away.
>>
>> .i lo go'i cu fanta lo mi betri ro'i 
>
> {lo nu go'i}.

I'm always thinking that I overuse "nu", so much that I tend to
underuse it. Thanks.

> Isn't "blues" more like {lo se badri} than {lo betri}?

Yeah, that's a bit closer. Can I use seldri or is there a difference
between seldri and se badri?

>> Chris said something about all them long-haired Jesus Christ 
>> look-alikes, shining down on me... shining down on me. 
>>
>> .i la krys. pu tavla fi role clani selkre prenu poi simsa la .iesus. 
>> gi'e gusni ni'a mi 

How about the other parts of the grammar here? For example, am I using
poi wrong?

> ni'a mi = under me.
> Not sure what "shining down on me" means.

The light comes from above, as in "The sun shines down on me".

Maybe I'll add a "pe'a" but possibly she means literally.

This ni'a was the thing I felt was most wrong with my translation and
I'm still not sure how to write it right.

>> I'm more laid back than you. Yeah, I'm more laid back 
>> than you will ever be. 
>>
>> .i mi surmau do .i mi caca'o go'i do bacai 
>
> That {bacai} doesn't go with {do} though, it says that I will
> be more laid back than you.

I don't really know that part of the grammar yet, but jbofi'e said:

(0[i {mi <(1[ca ca'o] go'i)1 (1do [ba cai])1>}])0
(0[i {mi <(1[ca ca'o] go'i)1 (1[ba cai] do)1>}])0

and I can't tell the difference; it seems to go with do in both lines.
Would .i mi caca'o go'i bacai do work?

.uiru'e ki'esai

-- 
.i mi'e snan .i mi rodo roda fraxu