From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Nov 09 10:58:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 9 Nov 2001 18:58:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 43762 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2001 18:58:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Nov 2001 18:58:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.73) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Nov 2001 18:58:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.163] by n23.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Nov 2001 18:58:02 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 18:57:59 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Werfel Message-ID: <9sh8vn+h99f@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <004901c16888$c4bc4bc0$1e2cca3e@oemcomputer> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 2947 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 149.225.9.126 From: "A.W.T." X-Yahoo-Profile: aolung --- In lojban@y..., "G. Dyke" 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) >=20 > ... wei=DF Leonidas mit unaussprechlicher Klarheit, dass heute ein Angebo= t =3D=0D zur > Rettung an ihn > ergangen ist, dunkel, halblaut, unbestimmt, wie alle Angebote dieser Art.= =3D=0D Er > wei=DF, dass er > daran gescheitert ist. Er wei=DF, dass ein neues Angebot nicht wieder erf= ol=3D=0D gen > wird. (Franz Werfel) > -- >=20 > I would have had: >=20 > cusku na'e kakne (I base this on lujvo like ***gau) You're absolutely right, it must be {skunalka'e} instead for "unexpressable= =3D=0D "/"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= =3D=0D en in present tense (according to the German original)! > replace the tai by noi (and put brivla accordingly) - not least because I= =3D=0D > can't figuere out whether {lo} is correct Had the noi-construction first, but altered it for the reasons mentioned by= =3D=0D 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= =3D=0D ark Okay, there's no ambiguity in meaning then! (without that, I do not like {p= =3D=0D e'i}). > remove the ro lo'e and put le'e/lo'e (I favour le'e it seems to encompass= =3D=0D > the "dieser Art") I'm also preferring {le'e} given that this view ("like all offers of that k= =3D=0D ind") is the narrator's pretty personal one, hence a=20 stereotype. Using {ro} is at least superfluous, maybe ungrammatical too (if= =3D=0D {le'e} implies singularity, i.e. a special person's one=20 specific stereotype. > na ba za'uroi nunfriti Interesting solution. Yet, I wanted to give "ein _neues_ Angebot", like in = =3D=0D English by "a _second_ offer" which seems to be closer to=20 the semantical contents (and less idiomatic). And, {remoi} to me seems prec= =3D=0D ise enough, because there can't be a {cimoi} etc. after=20 {pamoi} with a {remoi} skipped. IMO, "Rettung" (rescue) seems very hard to render in Lojban: there should b= =3D=0D e a component "help" + "danger/calamity etc." (of=20 misery/death etc.) + "success" (in acting). {nurgau} (sruri gasnu) is not s= =3D=0D ufficient. {nurgau le nunji'e lenu mrobi'o} has more the "prevent"-flavour than that = =3D=0D of "rescue". {terckape sidju} seems a bit closer but still not too satisfying because of= =3D=0D the generic meaning of "help". (A juridic example: Child is on the verge of drowning in the swimming pool:= =3D=0D a) a passer-by is legally obliged to give "help", b) the=20 child's mother has to "rescue" it.) ki'e mu'o .aulun.