Re: [lojban] A first attempt at translation

[Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>]

On Tuesday 02 December 2003 02:03, LeSchof wrote:
> .i o'onai .i doi fetcei ko cu sanga le go'i po'e le bersa ku ge'u ku
> vau
>
> Which I hope means something like:
> Anger. (designate goddess(es) for imperative ko) command goddess(es)
> to sing about the previous sentence (anger).  This anger belongs
> (inseperably) to the son.
>
> But I'm finding more and more reasons to doubt this is actually the
> case.
>
> My concern is that go'i refers to the last selbri, which might in this
> case be the sanga, and not the o'onai.  But another concern is that
> the o'onai appears to be a sumti-- not some 0-argument selbri-- in
> which case would go'i refer to it at all?  If o'onai is a sumti I
> still couldn't use ri to refer to it because another sumti fetcei,
> follows it and this would be the value used instead.

{o'onai} is neither a sumti nor a 0-argument selbri. It's an attitudinal, 
which is like an interjection. Thus {go'i} is referentless.

> But all of the above aside, I would like to indicate that this is the
> rage of achilles-- a specific instance of son, parented by peleus; and
> not just the anonymous son represented here.  I was thinking this
> would be doable with the bridi relationship below embedded:
> la axile'ys. bersa la pele'ys.

{le bersa} indicates a specific son, known to the author. If the son isn't 
named until later, that's fine. BTW, I'd say {.axilefs}, since I (like Modern 
Greeks) pronounce Ancient Greek (at least Attic and Koiné) and Modern Greek 
the same way.

phma
-- 
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.