From graywyvern@hotmail.com Mon Apr 09 03:03:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 9 Apr 2001 10:03:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 20377 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 10:03:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2001 10:03:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.237.168) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 11:04:10 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 07:12:56 -0700 Received: from 65.67.96.113 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:12:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [65.67.96.113] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Honorifics [was: Re: [lojban] translation of "Mark" Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:12:55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2001 14:12:56.0196 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD3FCC40:01C0BEA3] From: "michael helsem" >From: pycyn@aol.com 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