From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Jan 28 06:53:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 28 Jan 2002 14:53:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 6694 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2002 14:53:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2002 14:53:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2002 14:53:49 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:27:56 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:53:37 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:53:16 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #In a message dated 1/27/2002 7:57:03 PM Central Standard Time,=20 #a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: #> any normative style is going to #> be strongly SAE-influenced at this stage, which is to'e lojbo #Not so, not so. Many SAE features are thoroughly lojbo: SVO and SOV,=20 I don't think of SOV as very SAE. But SVO and SOV are anyway the commonest orders across the world, aren't they? #tense=20 #and negation position, and so on. The fact that a feature occurs in SAE #= does=20 #not mean that it is inappropriate for Lojban (after all, formal logic is a= n=20 #SAE invention and so likely to be somewhat that way, even though it is #VS= O).=20=20 #Of course, doing things SAE because that is what youare familiar with, #ra= ther=20 #than rethinking it in Lojban terms is objectionable -- but hard to prove. = =20 That was my point. My concern is that where Lojban offers multiple ways to say the same thing, and some ways are more SAE-like than others, we have a natural tendency to go for the more SAE-like way -- it certainly = facilitates communication. I just think that this natural tendency should n= ot be elevated to the status of normative good style. #On the current issue, I would assume that the glossray order of arguments= =20 #is the natural Lojban order and rearrangements need a reason, aesthetic,=20 #usually (get messy phrases to an end, copy another style, cadence,=20 #emphasis,...). That's a reasonable assumption, but objectionable. Lojban decided to adopt both the English-style 'case-marking by word-order' and the Japanese-style 'case-marking by adposition/particle', which leaves it up to users to choos= e their preferred method. Us English-speakers with faltering Lojban natural= ly prefer the English-like method, but this should not be at the cost of makin= g the Japanse-like method stylistically/discoursally marked. --And.