Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Le Petit Prince: Can we legally translate it?

From: Jay F Kominek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:12:39 -0600

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 08:43:34PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> [ Nice set of etext links snipped ]

> I remain partial to Burton's version of the Arabian Nights of which 12 
> volumes are up on Gutenberg (not sure if its complete - I've seen up to 30 
> volume versions), because it has the virtue of being of classic interest 
> and because it definitely is NOT a children's book but retained some of the 
> general appeal of same. But whether the language is "reasonably modern" is 
> a matter of opinion; it is Victorian era and he was trying to emulate the 
> flowery style of the Arabic.

Translating a translation seems rather unproductive, I know for a fact
I'm not the only Lojbanist who considers it vastly distasteful. Of
course, not many of us know Arabic, but that just means we ought not
be translating Arabian Nights. (There is actually an Arabic speaking
Lojbanist now, (Hi iusris!) who ought to be the one translating
something like Arabian Nights, if anyone.)

An Arabic->Lojban version would be a far more interesting read for
English-capable Lojbanists, than a translation of something they've
already got. (Which is sure to induce another bit of lossyness.)

(Robin's original request for suggestions stipulated that it be a
natively English work. He wasn't quite so rigorous in formulating this
latest request, I don't think.)

Translating good, but infrequently translated material would be
optimal, as there might then be some value in the translations, to
non-natively-English speaking Lojbanists.

Not that I can think of anything which satisfies those constraints.

-- 
Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
The NSA is now hiring. Send your resume to
Fort Meade, or speak into the thermostat.