From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Oct 09 08:44:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 9 Oct 2002 15:44:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 36633 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 15:44:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2002 15:44:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.127) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2002 15:44:57 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:44:56 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:44:56 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Alice style and finalisation (was:The Alice Translation Has Moved And Changed) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:44:56 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2002 15:44:56.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[D17F9CC0:01C26FAA] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la greg cusku di'e >I propose that all those who did each individual part propose a version >which they deem final. I'm afraid I've already run over Robin's and Pierre's parts. I think that was chapter 5, so they'd have to recover them from some earlier version on cvs. >The only style I have seen so far is extensive following of English >word-order and typical Llambian lack of {.}, both of which I happen to >agree >with, the first for following the thought order of the original, the second >as a general principle. You're mostly seeing my final version. In particular, I removed the dots from Pierre and Robin's parts to harmonize the whole thing. I tried to follow the word order of the original as much as possible in keeping with the sense. >I think we should add > >-Voluntary exclusion of any semantic forms which try to copy the idiom of >English too closely. My main example at the moment is chapter1, paragraph >3: > >{i la'e di'u vasru no ba'e mutce be le ka ju'ixlu} > >"There was nothing so VERY remarkable in that" > >which I think should be > >{i la'e di'u no'e ba'e mutce le ka cizra}. Good suggestion. >Another example of what I'd like more of is using connectives in tanru like >the {no pixra ja nuncasnu} of the first paragraph I'm not a big fan of tanru connectives, so I'm afraid you won't find a lot of them in the whole translation. >- I also feel we should strive for some sort of logical correctness, in >particular saying "zukte fi zi'o" rather than "zukte fi noda". > >That particular example, I now consider as correct, as it means "I don't >{zukte} because I don't have a {te zukte}", which rather acurately >translates "having nothing to do". Yes. I'm not very happy with it, but I couldn't think of anything better. >But in general, such constructions are >not correct, because they create an unintended negative sentence which does >not fully express what we want to say. Along the same vein is potential >inclusion of ce'u in all ka, and maybe some sort of rigour in NU-gadri. We should not make a tabu of {noda} just because it is a negation though! >- Excessive use of selma'o UI whenever possible Do you mean avoid excessive use, or encourage their use? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com