Subject: Re: [lojban] Translations

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:18:46 -0400

At 03:24 AM 8/7/02 +0000, araizen wrote:
>After the recent clarifications from lojbab on the baseline, here is
>my attempt to write guidelines for translation of the gi'uste.
>Comments awaited.
>
>The baseline consists of the gismu, the keyword, and the place
>structure, but not the exact wording of the place structure, and not
>the additional clarifications.

The exact wording is baselined, but the standard for changing it is lower 
so that it CAN be changed with proper justification (e.g. typos) However 
due to the nature of translation, the significance of the exact wording is 
the lowest priority in choosing between possible translations (i.e. of all 
else were equal, match the wording, but I suspect that it is unlikely that 
all else will be equal).

>The English keyword is baselined, but
>since it has to be translated anyway, there is not much point to
>keeping a bad or misleading keyword, and the keyword in the target
>language should be chosen considering the entire place structure of
>the gismu.

As well as the etymology for the other base languages, and the need for 
unique keywords.

>Likewise, the place-structure definition should reflect
>the same place structure as the English definition, but there is no
>need to follow it word-for-word, or even very closely, and should be
>written taking into consideration the semantic divisions in the
>target language.

Yes!

>The English list is baselined, but lists in other languages may also
>become part of the baseline when the dictionary is published.
>Therefore, the translation can take into account usage and experience
>gained since the English list was baselined, though it needs to
>remain faithful to the place structure and broad meaning recorded in
>the English list.

I think I agree with this, but I feel that "taking into account usage and 
experience" is something that should not be done without consultation with 
the community to see that the accounting matches consensus.

>As some examples of the changes of the last type I'm thinking of, I
>plan to make the Esperanto keyword for 'facki' 'ekscii', and not
>anything to do with 'malkovri' or 'eltrovi' (I would
>translate 'ekscii' into English as 'find out' anyway). The
>explanatory note in 'slabu' says that it can be used for both senses
>of 'old', i.e. 'malnova' and 'maljuna', however I would remove any
>mention of 'old in years', since usage has clearly decided that it
>doesn't have that meaning.

It CAN have that meaning, but seldom does. I would have no problem with 
omitting it UNLESS the target language more strongly than English 
associates with that metaphor for "old". Indeed this is an excellent case 
where I have no problem with changed wording, not because of "usage" but 
because apparently most other languages do NOT share the English double 
meaning in their words for old.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org