[lojban-beginners] Re: The Prophet

["komfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>]

On 8/7/07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/7/07, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > lo nunynonkansa
>
> Would {lo zazynonkansa} work too?

(The y is not needed there.)

I normally prefer the simple {nu} to za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e, since these
don't seem to add anything other than the complication of figuring
out which is the "correct" one in each case. It is hard to see how
{nu} could stand for anything other than {za'i} in the case of {nonkansa},
so what's the point of using the more precise one? If there was
a chance that nu could be taken for one of the others, then I
suppose using za'i would make sense, but it is very hard to
think of examples where more than one of za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e
apply so that the distinction is required.

I would argue, without much fervor, that the reason is aesthetic/stylistic. The original is not written in everyday language, hence, neither should the translation. OTOH, xorxes's point about za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e is so well-taken that I wonder whether they could be, erm, excised from the language. OTOH, does anyone know if there's a particular language or language family that is the source or inspiration of those four cmavo? mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan