From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Jan 17 18:51:57 1999 X-Digest-Num: 48 Message-ID: <44114.48.171.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:51:57 -0300 From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" From: Robin Turner > >(a) Most of the translators seem to have had problems with the rhetorical >"whereas". In Esperanto it comes out as "pro tio"; in the other IALs it is >"considerante" or some variant thereof. Those seem like standard translations. At least the Esperanto "pro tio, ke" is very standard for this, and since the equivalent formula in Spanish is "considerando" I suppose that "considerante" is not surprising for the Romance based IALs. >An attitudinal is called for, but >I'm not sure that "pe'i" is the right one here. Yes, pe'i seems to make it too subjective. The function of the word is just as an itemizer of preliminary considerations. How about {zu'u}? >(c) "galfinai" is an extremely clumsy attempt to render "inalienable" {galFInai} would be a fu'ivla, you can't use attitudinals to modify brivla like that. "Inalienable" means that it can't be taken away, so maybe {selylebnalka'e}. >Corrctions/improvements would be much appreciated. This will go on my >website as part of an essay on IALs, along with the Esperanto, Ido, >Occidental, Interlingua and (if I can get someone to translate it) Glosa >versions. Here's my take: i zu'u le nu tugni fi le jinzi kamselsi'a e le dunli je selylebnalka'e selzi'e vu'ope ro cmima be le remna lanzu cu jicmu le nu zifre e le nu pairvu'e e le nu panpi vu'ope ve'e le munje You had {le ka se sinma} and {le ka selzi'e} both in the x3 of tugni, but they are different types of things "the property of being respected", (i.e. dignity) and "the property of being a right". I changed to {le kamselsi'a} and simply {le selzi'e}. A separate question is whether you can have those things in the x3 of tugni instead of a whole proposition. Does {tugni fi le kamselsi'a} mean "recognizes that there is dignity", or is it sumti raising and means nothing? Also, you had the rights and dignity of the human family, whereas the original talks of the rights and dignity of each member of the family. The difference is subtle, but I think important, since we are talking of the rights of the individuals, not the rights of the race. I used {vu'ope} instead of {pe} because the relative applies to all of the joined sumti, not just the last one. co'o mi'e xorxes