Re: [lojban] translation of "Mark"

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/5/2001 1:53:35 AM Central Daylight Time,
rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes:

> > > > I would use ni'oni'oni'o; Book, Chapter, Verse, respectively, as the
> > > > verse breaks will not be obvious in the lojban.
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you want to start each verse with ni'o? ni'o gives the reader the
> > > impression of a topic change. ni'oni'o makes sense.
> >
> > Well, I thought that's what I wanted.  8)
>
>
>
> But each verse in the Bible does not start a new topic.

Yes.  I (pu) thought that's what I wanted.  (Heh heh: I knew that was
what I wanted, but I was wrong).

I think the whole string of {ni'o} is unnecessary.  {dei cfari} says it all.  
Also, the verse divsions are very late (15th century?) and even the chapter
divisions (except in Psalms) are not in many old mss.

others (I lose track)
<> All tolled, this is a good first attempt!>
And all told, too.

<{le rasyselpe'u}?>
Yeah, not so bad -- but I suspect {xristos} wins for all sorts of reason  
(over {meciax} too.

<How about "turni"? Actually the Hebrew is YHWH, so it should be ".iaves" (if
you see "Kurios" in the Greek with no article, it's usually YHWH).>
The tetragrammaton would have been read as "'adonai" long before the first
century, see the "kyrios" in LXX already (which is what Mark is quoting).  

<I suggest a lujvo for "gospel" as it's a common word in the NT.>
But not again in Mark, I think (mainly Luke and Paul).  But, yes, it deserves
a
lujvo.

<One of these days I'll translate some more of that Ruth I started.>
Good!  Bible translating is a fine old constructed langauge tradition
(natural language one, too).