| In a message dated 4/20/2001 5:59:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > ko cpacu le sidju be fi le zu'o do jimpe tcidu la lojban .i mi'a di'iAre you talking about the 1st sentence? How appropriate! No, the "be fi le zu'o" is correct. The activity of "le zu'o" is bound to the 3rd (fi) place of sidju. I'm afraid there are no authors or ideas in that sentence.> Alas, I have a helper who occasionally screws up, giving me the place structure for {sidbo} rather than for {sidju} -- I suppose the eye slides a bit moving across the page. Interesting that it makes a sort of sense though, a;lways a rare treat. <> {le glico} means the English something, since it goes on to discuss > something, I assumed it was animate and probably human -- not an unreasonable > reading A mysterious one, since I offered English text, translated it into Lojban, and then started to compare the two.> You said the English thing, which could be the sentence, of course (andwas intended to be) but then said that it discussed something, which an inanimate thing can't do -- what is a person to do in this case? Trying to be nice, I did the best I could with what I got. <.i mi zdile selcinri le du'u le glico fanva cu casnu da .i ku'i le mi lojbo fanva cu casnu na'ebo da> Ah, I was right! It is the English translator and the Lojbanic translator who discuss these matters. Did their discussions affect their final translations, which are, I assume, what we have in the original text? And what was the original (in what language even) which these two (or two phases of you) translated into the two sentences presented? Whichof the translations is closer to the original in terms of what it is about? But now you tell me that you translated an English text (the one given here, I suppose) into Lojban. Does this mean that there was not anotheroriginal which you first translated into English and then translated that translation into Lojban? This story is coming apart rather badly now. But not as badly as your Lojban translation, which looked OK to me at first glance but which you now tell me is about something different from whatthe English original (?) is about. I am afrraid I don't see it -- and, believe me, I would look -- but if you say it's a lousy trat, I'll take your word for it. Since neither of the sentences has much to do with the subject under discussion, I don't suppose it matters much, but why flaunt an admittedly bad translation of something at best marginally relevant in the midst of an argument. It is very bad strategy, unless you are going to pull off a really clever coup soon. This latest response would have been a good time; the next is the absolute latest for it to be effective, I think. Or are you having trouble with your assistant, too. If so, I sympathize. |