From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 20 18:03:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 01:03:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 93485 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 01:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 01:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 01:03:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id r.b7.d5cb7ab (4540) for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:03:20 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: "not only" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b7.d5cb7ab.28123658_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_b7.d5cb7ab.28123658_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/20/2001 5:59:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > > ko cpacu le sidju be fi le zu'o do jimpe tcidu la lojban .i mi'a di'i > > > zgana le fatci ka'i le seldu'o .i lu le glico li'u smuni le glico .en= ai=20 > le > > > glipre > > > > > > .i mi zdile selcinri le du'u le glico fanva cu casnu da .i ku'i le mi > > > > > Thanks for the advice, but I already had that idea, if you mean {fe le > > zu'o...}. If you mean {fi}, I'm not sure how an activity can be the=20 > author > > of an idea. Or is the {be} wrong ans this is the source whence I shoul= d=20 > get > > the idea. It was that, by the way. > Are you talking about the 1st sentence? How appropriate! No, the "be fi l= e zu'o" is correct. The activity of "le zu'o" is bound to the 3rd (fi) place of sidju. I'm afraid there are no authors or ideas in that sentence.> Alas, I have a helper who occasionally screws up, giving me the place=20 structure for {sidbo} rather than for {sidju} -- I suppose the eye slides a= =20 bit moving across the page. Interesting that it makes a sort of sense=20 though, a;lways a rare treat. <> {le glico} means the English something, since it goes on to discuss > something, I assumed it was animate and probably human=A0 -- not an=20 unreasonable > reading A mysterious one, since I offered English text, translated it into Lojban, and then started to compare the two.> You said the English thing, which could be the sentence, of course (and was= =20 intended to be) but then said that it discussed something, which an inanima= te=20 thing can't do -- what is a person to do in this case? Trying to be nice, = I=20 did the best I could with what I got. <.i mi zdile selcinri le du'u le glico fanva cu casnu da .i ku'i le mi lojbo fanva cu casnu na'ebo da> Ah, I was right! It is the English translator and the Lojbanic translator w= ho=20 discuss these matters. Did their discussions affect their final=20 translations, which are, I assume, what we have in the original text?=20=20 And what was the original (in what language even) which these two (or two=20 phases of you) translated into the two sentences presented? Which of the=20 translations is closer to the original in terms of what it is about? But now you tell me that you translated an English text (the one given here= ,=20 I suppose) into Lojban. Does this mean that there was not another original= =20 which you first translated into English and then translated that translatio= n=20 into Lojban? This story is coming apart rather badly now.=20 But not as badly as your Lojban translation, which looked OK to me at first= =20 glance but which you now tell me is about something different from what the= =20 English original (?) is about. I am afrraid I don't see it -- and, believe= =20 me, I would look -- but if you say it's a lousy trat, I'll take your word f= or=20 it. Since neither of the sentences has much to do with the subject under=20 discussion, I don't suppose it matters much, but why flaunt an admittedly b= ad=20 translation of something at best marginally relevant in the midst of an=20 argument. It is very bad strategy, unless you are going to pull off a real= ly=20 clever coup soon. This latest response would have been a good time; the ne= xt=20 is the absolute latest for it to be effective, I think. Or are you having trouble with your assistant, too. If so, I sympathize. --part1_b7.d5cb7ab.28123658_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/20/2001 5:59:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


> > ko cpacu le sid= ju be fi le zu'o do jimpe tcidu la lojban .i mi'a di'i
> > zgana le fatci ka'i le seldu'o .i lu le glico li'u smuni le g= lico .enai=20
le
> > glipre
> >
> > .i mi zdile selcinri le du'u le glico fanva cu casnu da .i ku= 'i le mi
> >
> Thanks for the advice, but I already had that idea, if you mean {f= e le
> zu'o...}.  If you mean {fi}, I'm not sure how an activity can= be the=20
author
> of an idea.  Or is the {be} wrong ans this is the source when= ce I should=20
get
> the idea.  It was that, by the way.
Are you talking about the 1st sentence? How appropriate! N= o, the "be fi le
zu'o" is correct. The activity of "le zu'o" is bound to the 3rd (fi) pl= ace
of sidju. I'm afraid there are no authors or ideas in that sentence.>= ;

Alas, I have a helper who occasionally screws up, giving me the place=20
structure for {sidbo} rather than for {sidju} -- I suppose the eye slid= es a=20
bit moving across the page.  Interesting that it makes a sort of s= ense=20
though, a;lways a rare treat.

<> {le glico} means the English something, since it goes on to di= scuss
> something, I assumed it was animate and probably human=A0 -- not a= n=20
unreasonable
> reading


A mysterious one, since I offered English text, translated it into Lojb= an,
and then started to compare the two.>

You said the English thing, which could be the sentence, of course (and= was=20
intended to be) but then said that it discussed something, which an ina= nimate=20
thing can't do -- what is a person to do in this case?  Trying to = be nice, I=20
did the best I could with what I got.

<.i mi zdile selcinri le du'u le glico fanva cu casnu da .i ku'i le = mi
lojbo fanva cu casnu na'ebo da>

Ah, I was right! It is the English translator and the Lojbanic translat= or who=20
discuss these matters.  Did their discussions affect their final=20
translations, which are, I assume, what we have in the original text? &= nbsp;
And what was the original (in what language even) which these two (or t= wo=20
phases of you) translated into the two sentences presented?  Which= of the=20
translations is closer to the original in terms of what it is about?
But now you tell me that you translated an English text (the one given = here,=20
I suppose) into Lojban.  Does this mean that there was not another= original=20
which you first translated into English and then translated that transl= ation=20
into Lojban?  This story is coming apart rather badly now.=20
But not as badly as your Lojban translation, which looked OK to me at f= irst=20
glance but which you now tell me is about something different from what= the=20
English original (?) is about.  I am afrraid I don't see it -- and= , believe=20
me, I would look -- but if you say it's a lousy trat, I'll take your wo= rd for=20
it.
Since neither of the sentences has much to do with the subject under=20
discussion, I don't suppose it matters much, but why flaunt an admitted= ly bad=20
translation of something at best marginally relevant in the midst of an= =20
argument.  It is very bad strategy, unless you are going to pull o= ff a really=20
clever coup soon.  This latest response would have been a good tim= e; the next=20
is the absolute latest for it to be effective, I think.
Or are you having trouble with your assistant, too.  If so, I symp= athize.


--part1_b7.d5cb7ab.28123658_boundary--