Re: Werfel

["A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

--- In lojban@y..., "G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@b...> wrote:
> cu'u la .aulun.
> --
> .ije la le,onidas. goi ko'a nalkaknysku kamkli djuno le du'u cale cabdei
> pu te friti lenu terckape sidju ko'a kei tai lo pevmanku .e lo xablau
> .e lo nalsatci pe ro lo'e nunfriti .i djuno le du'u ko'a pu fliba ti
> .i djuno le du'u na ba nunfriti remoi
> (to fi'e la frants.verfel. toi)
> 
> ... weiß Leonidas mit unaussprechlicher Klarheit, dass heute ein Angebot =
zur
> Rettung an ihn
> ergangen ist, dunkel, halblaut, unbestimmt, wie alle Angebote dieser Art.=
 Er
> weiß, dass er
> daran gescheitert ist. Er weiß, dass ein neues Angebot nicht wieder erfol=
gen
> wird. (Franz Werfel)
> --
> 
> I would have had:
> 
> cusku na'e kakne (I base this on lujvo like ***gau)

You're absolutely right, it must be {skunalka'e} instead for "unexpressable=
"/"unaussprechlich
(wouldn't like a tanru for that, though).

> lo'e du'u

?? ...djuno lo'e du'u... (Can you expain your intention?)

> remove all {pu}s

I don't think so: there must be a past tense relative to the story time giv=
en in present tense (according to the German original)!

> replace the tai by noi (and put brivla accordingly) - not least because I=

> can't figuere out whether {lo} is correct

Had the noi-construction first, but altered it for the reasons mentioned by=
 you (which I too am chewing on):
Why _not_ using {tai}? Why's the {lo} seeming to be not appropriate??

> remove the pev: there is no non-figurative way in which an offer can be d=
ark

Okay, there's no ambiguity in meaning then! (without that, I do not like {p=
e'i}).

> remove the ro lo'e and put le'e/lo'e (I favour le'e it seems to encompass=

> the "dieser Art")

I'm also preferring {le'e} given that this view ("like all offers of that k=
ind") is the narrator's  pretty personal one, hence a 
stereotype. Using {ro} is at least superfluous, maybe ungrammatical too (if=
 {le'e} implies singularity, i.e.  a special person's one 
specific stereotype.

> na ba za'uroi nunfriti

Interesting solution. Yet, I wanted to give "ein _neues_ Angebot", like in =
English by "a _second_ offer" which seems to be closer to 
the semantical contents (and less idiomatic). And, {remoi} to me seems prec=
ise enough, because there can't be a {cimoi} etc. after 
{pamoi} with a {remoi} skipped.

IMO, "Rettung" (rescue) seems very hard to render in Lojban: there should b=
e a component "help" + "danger/calamity etc."  (of 
misery/death etc.) + "success" (in acting). {nurgau} (sruri gasnu) is not s=
ufficient.
{nurgau le nunji'e lenu mrobi'o}  has more the "prevent"-flavour than that =
of "rescue".
{terckape sidju} seems a bit closer but still not too satisfying because of=
 the generic meaning of "help".
(A juridic example: Child is on the verge of drowning in the swimming pool:=
 a) a passer-by is legally obliged to give "help", b) the 
child's mother has to "rescue" it.)

ki'e mu'o .aulun.