Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:14 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And for 1?  These are not, after all, translations but rather part of an effort
> to teach and justify a new usage.  One expects such to be fdone with relevant
> care.

Not everyone is consciously aware of such linguistic subtleties, so
the fault was not necessarily carelessness.

> As you not, acceptable translations that make the point are easily come
> by (I am a little uncertain about 'yay for Mom', which doesn't seems more to
> applaud than co-rejoice, but that is aesthetics).  As I said, 1 does not obvious
> lends itself to even these explanations,

Which is why one has to resort to a not-fully-adequate paraphrase. How
would you translate "uu" in English? Given that, we can probably find
some better way to translate "uu dai" and "uu da'oi ...". Maybe
something like:

  la .selkik. .uu da'oi .lindar. cu co'e
  "Selkik ('poor thing!' would say Lindar) does something."

but that's not very idiomatic and still doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe English is just incapable of  doing it so succintly as Lojban in
this case. That's a translation problem, not a problem with the
Lojban.

> but does -- like the rest of them, fit
> in with a propositional interpretation, which is also fairly regularly mentioned
> subliminally (it is hard to talk overtly about some things in Lojspeak) in
> earlier comments in this ane earlier related topic.

If your point is that Lojbanists are not always accomplished linguists, I agree.

If your point is that "da'oi" is somehow against the spirit of Lojban,
I disagree.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.