Subject: Re: Honorifics [was: Re: [lojban] translation of "Mark"

From: "michael helsem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:12:55

>From: [email-masked]
li'o
>Hmmmm! They show that you feel respect when speaking, so they give 
>honorific status to whomever you are speaking to, but do they really work 
>on the preceding *word*?

yes; that's the grammar of attitudinals.

If there is no better way, this might work, I suppose. But
>surely, there is a strictly lexical way that lacks this ambiguity.
>

BANLI CO ME LA... seems clumsier

><(I would stay away from anything CTILE, > even metaphorically.)> >
>
>
>Nah! It's olive oil (with a mixture of herbs and spices -- formula is in 
>Leviticus somewhere, I think). xorxes has noted that {grusa} doesn't give 
>too horrible a compound
>

i assume you mean GRASU--h'm, "the Greasy One". no, literalness
does not help, here.

li'o
>
>For what? Misses "lord" completely (ruler, supplier of food in time of 
>need,...) and does nothing for :"ho kyrios" or "adonai" that I can see. And 
>"great in spirit" is too fuzzy to very exact for any purpose, ditto 
>"spiritually great." To be sure, {turni} comes down heavy on the "rules 
>over" part and light on the provider part,

well, from context it's pretty obvious this is at best a figurative
rulership. i went for what's significant in this story. FU'EPE'A SABJI
JOI TURNI FU'O but we might as well mess with RALJU for all that
Lojban can offer in this way. personally i think we ought to get
comfortable with translating contemporary thought before we attempt
more distant & debatable texts. it's foolish to think just because
the bible is SLABU it's SE DJUNO. (there's even scholars who think
"jesus" was a code-name for 'mushroom'...)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com