On 7 July 2010 03:54, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2010 18:46:16 tijlan wrote:
> I can think of two principles to consider. One is translational fidelity.
> If the non-Lojbanic source text is left-branching (dependents precede a
> head), it would benefit from "la poi ma'azva .karabax." than "la karabax.
> poi ma'azva" in terms of accuracy. The other one is flow of information as
> a literary device. You decide which structure is cognitively more effective
> in communicating the idea in question.
Which would you say for that particular name? In case you didn't recognize it,
Russian "nagorny" means "on the mountain".
The word is adjective (rather than a prepositional phrase or a relative clause), so we could simply have "la ma'azva .karabax." with respect to the new cmevla rule. Otherwise (i.e. traditionally), I would say "la poi ma'azva .karabax." (I have at times used this form to translate English names like "President Obama" or "Queen Elizabeth" as well).
I could be wrong but I think Russian permits the adjective after the noun, i.e. Karabax nagornyj. So "la .karabax. poi ma'azva" may still be in accordance with the Russian grammar if not the conventional word order of the name in question.
Side note:
In some languages including English, the "nagornyj" is transcribed rather than translated. I wouldn't do that in Lojban. The landlocked region now has [ti'e] at least two other official names in Armenian and Azerbaijani with their own, unrelated words for the "nagornyj" part, after the Soviet Union era. I think the meaning-based "ma'azva" would live more up to Lojban's neutrality standard.