Re: Poesy (WAS Re: Online learning)

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

Thanks for the suggestions.  Here's the revised version .....

.i .e=92o doi solri ko kurji ro=92i
.i .e=92o le pruxi cu  prami je gleki
.i .e=92o doi lunri ko kurji ro=92e
.i .e=92o le menli cu sanji je surla
.i .e=92o doi fagri ko kurji ro=92o
.i .e=92o le xadni cu kanro je tsali

.i la lunri cu kurji le menli
.i le menli cu sanji je surla
.i la solri cu kurji le pruxi
.i le pruxi cu prami je gleki
.i la fagri cu kurji mi xadni
.i le xadni cu kanro je tsali

.i mi du le gusni po=92e le mi cevni
.i .e=92o le cevni cu stali je gidva

.i .e=92o lei jmive cu lifri
le nu panpi je zifre je gleki

This version scans a bit better, I think, and some of the gismu changes m=
ake
for some nice alliteration.

co'o mi'e robin.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge J. Llamb=EDas wrote:

> la robin cusku di'e
>
> >.i .e'o doi solri ko kurji ro'i
> >.i .e'o le mi cinmo cu  prami gi'e gleki
>  [...]
> >.i .e'o lei jmive cu panpi gi'e zifre gi'e gleki
>
> Very nice!
>
> >A few points ....
> >
> >1.  It's always a problem finding a comprise between metricality and
> >grammaticality.  Apart from the last line, it should all fit roughly
> >into tetrameter or trimeter (second verse), but sometimes you have to
> >"scrunch" some of the cmavo.  Fine in English, but I'm not sure if
> >Lojban is supposed to be syllable-timed or stress-timed.  If the atter
> >is the case, this obviously wouldn't work.
>
> I think I've always assumed syllable timing. But Lojban grammar
> is more flexible than it meets the eye, it is usually possible to
> accomodate metricality. For example, instead of  "cu prami gi'e
> gleki" you might want to say "ge prami gi gleki", with exactly the
> same meaning and saving that extra syllable. Or you might like
> "cu prami je gleki", with very nearly the same meaning.
>
> Also "le cinmo" instead of  "le mi cinmo" is very acceptable,
> if you don't mind losing the touch of egocentrism. After all, the
> prayer probably refers to the universal "mi", not the individual.
>
> >2.  "cinmo" was an attempt to translate the metaphorical use of
> >"heart".  I was really more after something like "soul" as it (or rath=
er
> >its equivalent, which I've forgotten) is used in Russian or Early Mode=
rn
> >English, rather than "pruxi", which implies "ghostly/ethereal".
>
> I think "cinmo" is all right. But notice the difference between "cinmo"
> and "pruxi" also has to do with their place structures. "cinmo" is like
> "pensi", x1 feels x2, x1 thinks x2. "pruxi" is like "menli" and like
> "xadni":
> x1 is the spirit/heart/soul of x2, x1 is the mind of x2, x1 is the body=
 of
> x2.
> We might say that "pruxi" is to "cinmo" as "menli" is to "pensi", and
> "xadni" to "ganse". The first is the part of the person used to do the
> second.
>
> If anyone has been reading the series of exchanges between
> Michael Helsem and myself under the subject "jbopemci", they may
> recognize that we've been using "pruxi" in the soul/moral/emotional
> sense rather than the ghostly one. (Has anyone, BTW?)
>
> >3.  "klina" and "sarxe" were attempts at "lucid" and "calm" (as mental
> >states), which is stretching things somewhat.
>
> How about "sanji" and "surla"?
>
> >4. I'm not sure exactly what the difference between "pe'u" and "e'o" i=
s,
> >except that I have never seen "pe'u" outside an imperative selbri.  I
> >stuck with "e'o" as it seems more flexible and general, and is also us=
ed
> >in lojbab's translation of the Lord's Prayer (the first draft used
> >"pe'u" in imperative selbri and "e'o" otherwise).
>
> The difference is more in their grammar than their meaning. "pe'u" is
> a vocative so it must be followed by a name. You could say  "pe'u doi
> lunra",
> but not "pe'u le mi cinmo", unless you were addressing "le cinmo".
>
> co'o mi'e xorxes
>