Talk:Esther

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by PierreAbbat on Sat 05 of July, 2008 05:27 GMT posts: 324

Suggestions on chapter 1:

{kuc}: I had {itiopias}, which is wrong; it's acually Nubia, and the text should have a footnote explaining this.

{lo nu .abu nuntru} should be {lo nu .abu turni}.

{la gugrperja}: I had {lo perso}. Where does the "j" come from? If I said {la}, I'd use a cmevla {pars} or {paras}.

{lo nobli .e lo jansu}: Not knowing exactly what the Hebrew (or Persian) word meant, I put {partamu}.

{selnolraitru}: Is this {selnobli traji turni} or what? Should it be {se nolraitru}?

{so'i djedi po'u lo pabinomei}: I suggest {lo djedi be li so'i pabino}.

{kunrmarbli}: {kunra} implies that a rock is used to obtain a metal, not as a building material. I used {marmoru}, and for a type-3, I'd say {rokrmarmoru}.

{kunrxalabastre}: I had {xunro'i}, though I'm not sure what stone I had in mind when I wrote it. See my comment at the end of the verse.

{jemnrneikre}: This sounds weird, being based on the English pronunciation of a word that's a fu'ivla in English. I had {boijmemai}, which should be {boljmemai}.

{le risna cu gleki ki'u tu'a lo vanju}: why not {xalgleki}? And if you say {pe'a}, it should be next to {risna}.

{selfu}: I know of one סריס who pretty certainly wasn't gantycau, namely Potiphar, but the ones guarding the harem most likely were. What about these?

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of July, 2008 14:38 GMT

> Suggestions on chapter 1:

{ca'u ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia gi lo nobli .e lo jansu vu'o pe lo selje'a}: Here {pe lo selje'a} will attach to the whole connected thing {ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia gi lo nobli .e lo jansu}. One way to limit it to the last two might be {... gi lu'o lo nobli .e lo jansu lu'u pe lo selje'a}. Another way: {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}.

{pa balsai be ze'e lo djedi be li ze}: To me that's a banquet that lasts a seven-day eternity.

{lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

{lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1), the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant?

{sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by PierreAbbat on Sat 05 of July, 2008 18:50 GMT posts: 324

On Saturday 05 July 2008 10:37:11 Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Suggestions on chapter 1: > {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely {flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.

> {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o > seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1), > the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant?

Vashti wear it. (Subjunctive because she refused.) So {ra klagau la vactic. pe fi'o seldasni le noltrumapku le nolraitru}.

Pierre

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of July, 2008 19:18 GMT
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> > Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely > {flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.

Any idea why such a law was required at all? Was it customary for people to force others to drink even if they didn't want to?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

adamgarrigusPosted by adamgarrigus on Mon 07 of July, 2008 13:56 GMT posts: 92
Any reason to use English style chapter enumeration (e.g., "-1-") rather than the Lojbanic {no'o mo'o}? mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 07 of July, 2008 16:03 GMT posts: 350

Hmmm... not sure why the "reply" button is generating an error....

Pierre: >{kuc}: I had {itiopias}, which is wrong; it's acually Nubia, and the text should have > a footnote explaining this.

I considered itiopias myself. But I decided that the text should reflect the geographical boundaries of the time, so I decided to keep kuc. People intereested can look it up. This document is inteded to be a lojban megilla, not a commentary on the book of Esther, and therefore no notes were included (other than the preface)

> {lo nu .abu nuntru} should be {lo nu .abu turni}.

Agreed.

> {la gugrperja}: I had {lo perso}. Where does the "j" come from? If I said {la}, I'd > use a cmevla {pars} or {paras}.

I dislike using non-standard gismu. (The "j" comes from the English (American?) pronunciation, but I'm not wedded to it. I'd be happy with "paras", but figured I'm already making people look up kuc, so.... ;-) Besides, I don't see anything inherently wrong with "la gugrperja" it's the country that's known by the name of the "Persia country". Which may or may not be the same (in fact is not) as lo gugrperja of today.


> {lo nobli .e lo jansu}: Not knowing exactly what the Hebrew (or Persian) word > meant, I put {partamu}.

Again, I dislike fu'ivla. Makes more problems then it solves (as I find every time I try to read one of your stories, pierre ;-)

partmim (which is certainly of Persian origin) is translated in all but one (a non-Jewish one, which translates "chiefs") of my sources as "nobles", so that's good enough for me. Rashi says it's the Persian for "governors".

> {selnolraitru}: Is this {selnobli traji turni} or what? Should it be {se nolraitru}?

It is se nolraitru, and if you prefer to render it that way, I have no objections. My understanding is that in general, sel(/ter/vel/xel)brodybrode should be undestood as "se brodybrode" in absence of -kep- or similar. And I have used it thus many times here, where I tried to use one Hebrew "brivla" -> one lojban brivla (one notable exception was for courtyard)

> {so'i djedi po'u lo pabinomei}: I suggest {lo djedi be li so'i pabino}.

While I agree that would be an equivalent translation, it would remove the Hebrew idiom, which I'm attempting to keep in all cases ("...many days, 180 days")

> {kunrmarbli}: {kunra} implies that a rock is used to obtain a metal, not as a > building material. I used {marmoru}, and for a type-3, I'd say {rokrmarmoru}.

I disagree that "kunra" necessarily implies that. X2 in fact, may BE a metal. To me, the salient point is that kunra is mined, whereas rokci are not. I agree that either might be appropriate categories here, however, and I had considered both. I went with kunra because it seems to me that rokci in general connotes something of low value, whereas many kunra (diamonds, gold, silver, platinum, etc.) are very valuable. And I'd like to keep marbli.

> {kunrxalabastre}: I had {xunro'i}, though I'm not sure what stone I had in mind > when I wrote it. See my comment at the end of the verse.

This stone and the next were indeed extrememly varied in how they were translated by my various sources, so I went with what was essentially an arbitrary choice.

> {jemnrneikre}: This sounds weird, being based on the English pronunciation of a > word that's a fu'ivla in English. I had {boijmemai}, which should be {boljmemai}.

I have no particular objection to your change.

> {le risna cu gleki ki'u tu'a lo vanju}: why not {xalgleki}? And if you say {pe'a}, it > should be next to {risna}.

a) not "xalgleki" because the Hebrew does not imply that. b) It's not just the heart that is used idiomatically, but the entire phrase "The king's heart was happy with wine"

> {selfu}: I know of one סריס who pretty certainly wasn't gantycau, namely Potiphar, >but the ones guarding the harem most likely were. What about these?

Presumably, they were. However, the Hebrew doesn't imply it, as you correctly show with the Potiphar example. It basically means someone who is in charge of some part of a royal household. (Modern day Hebrew, on the other hand, does it use it exclusively for "eunuch").

Xorxes:

> {ca'u ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia gi lo nobli .e lo > jansu vu'o pe lo selje'a}: Here {pe lo selje'a} will attach to the > whole connected thing {ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia > gi lo nobli .e lo jansu}. One way to limit it to the last two might be > {... gi lu'o lo nobli .e lo jansu lu'u pe lo selje'a}. Another way: > {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}.

Will it really? I assumed the "gi" would block that from happening. But now that I look at the jbofi'e output, I can see you are right. Okay, I like your second suggestion. Also, do you think ".e" would be better as "kujoi?"

> {pa balsai be ze'e lo djedi be li ze}: To me that's a banquet that > lasts a seven-day eternity.

Yes, I know, but we've already discuess our differences on ze'e tagged sumti. To me, that means "all of a seven day period")

> {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

No. It means that the drinking was _regulated_ by the law. In this particular case, that meant, as it says, that by law, none were compelled to drink. Here's what Rashi has to say:

according to the law-- Because there are feasts in which they coerce those seated to drink the contents of a large vessel, and some can drink it only with difficulty, but here, no one coerced anyone.

Also, other commentators state that since Jews will not touch unsealed wine that is handled or made by non-Jews (indeed, according to one famous story, this was one of the Charges Haman made against the Jews: "The Jews insult the king. For if a fly falls into their wine, they would just flick it away, and drink, but if His Majesty were to touch it, they would pour out the whole goblet), but in this case, the King assured the Jews that they wouldn't be in danger of insulting the royal personage if they refused to drink, and additoinally, he had kosher wines brought for them.

However, it does appear that I've misremembered selfla. I thought the X2 piece of flalu was like that of catni or jitro, a sphere of influence, rathar than a particular law. I'll replace it with "lo nu pinxu cu selra'a lo flalu".

> {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o > seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1), >the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant?

Good point. The literal Hebrew is "...to bring Vashti the Queen before the king in a royal crown". If you can figure out how to disambiguate it to Vashti without distorting the order or adding new non-cmavo (I consider fi'o seldasni fe'u to function as a single BAI, so don't consider it to be a "significant" word), I'd love to hear it.

"nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw.


> {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e >ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la > .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be > in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest > {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}.

Not that I have any objection per se, but I'm not sure what is gained by it?

Pierre:

> Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Suggestions on chapter 1: > {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

> Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely > {flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.

Right. See above as to how I'll handle it.

> > {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o > > seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1), > > the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant?

> Vashti wear it. (Subjunctive because she refused.) So {ra klagau la vactic. pe > fi'o seldasni le noltrumapku le nolraitru}.

Yes, but I'd like to preserve the Hebrew word order if possible (see above).

komfo,amonan: Yes I chose to use numerals to reflect the fact that they should not be considered part of the text.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of July, 2008 17:48 GMT

On 7/7/08, lagejyspa wrote: > Besides, I don't see anything inherently wrong with "la gugrperja" > it's the country that's known by the name of the "Persia country".

I would say it is inherently wrong to use the English pronunciation in cases like these, where there's no significant connection between the thing named and the English language. (Same goes for "marbli".)

> Xorxes: > > Another way: > > {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}. > > Okay, I like your second suggestion. Also, do you think ".e" > would be better as "kujoi?"

{ku} is not needed with the PEG grammar. I don't think the choice really matters in this case, I use {jo'u} for neutral between {.e} and {joi}.

> > {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o > > seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1), > >the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant? > > Good point. The literal Hebrew is "...to bring Vashti the Queen before > the king in a royal crown". If you can figure out how to disambiguate it > to Vashti without distorting the order or adding new non-cmavo (I consider > fi'o seldasni fe'u to function as a single BAI, so don't consider it to be > a "significant" word), I'd love to hear it.

I'd use {fau lo nu vy dasni lo nolmapku}.

> "nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is > in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw.

The Hebrew word for "crown" includes a "royal" morpheme, and that same morpheme is used again as a modifier?

> > {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e > >ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la > > .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be > > in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest > > {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}. > > Not that I have any objection per se, but I'm not sure what is gained by it?

So that {po'onai} and {ji'a} are not modifying the wrong thing. As it is, {po'onai} modifies {nolraitru} instead of {le nolraitru} (easy to fix with a {ku}) and {ji'a} modifies {pacyzu' e} instead of its x2 argument (very hard/ impossible to fix, given the complexity of the sumti).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by PierreAbbat on Mon 07 of July, 2008 19:34 GMT posts: 324

On Monday 07 July 2008 13:48:31 Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/7/08, lagejyspa wrote: > > "nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is > > in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw. > > The Hebrew word for "crown" includes a "royal" morpheme, > and that same morpheme is used again as a modifier?

No it doesn't. The Hebrew phrase is "keter malkut", where "ktr" and "mlk" are smegi'u, and "mlk" means "king". "-ut" means "-ness" or "-ty" or "-dom" or "kam-"

Pierre.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 08 of July, 2008 14:53 GMT posts: 350

> On 7/7/08, lagejyspa wrote: > > Besides, I don't see anything inherently wrong with "la gugrperja" > > it's the country that's known by the name of the "Persia country". > > I would say it is inherently wrong to use the English pronunciation > in cases like these, where there's no significant connection between > the thing named and the English language. (Same goes for "marbli".) >

It wasn't the phonemic value of the name that I was questioning here, but Pierre's implication that he would use only a cmevla after la.

As far as the use of fu'ivla gathered from English, as opposed to any other language — by all means, if a word is in jbovlaste, I'll use it. I've used Pierre's non-English-derived "sperlanu", for example (not in Esther!). But absent any (even quasi-) official lojbanic word, I claim that someone, somewhere, is gonna have to try to look up and/or guess what the word means, so no language of origin is inherently better than other. So it might as well be this translator's native tongue :-P This is the main reason that I really DON'T like fu'ivla in general.

> > Xorxes: > > > Another way: > > > {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}. > > > > Okay, I like your second suggestion. Also, do you think ".e" > > would be better as "kujoi?" > > {ku} is not needed with the PEG grammar. I don't think the choice > really matters in this case, I use {jo'u} for neutral between {.e} > and {joi}. >

I'm aware that ku is not strictly necessary, but for ease of my sanity, I've kept everything jbofi'e-parseable.

> > > {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o > > > seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1), > > >the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant? > > > > Good point. The literal Hebrew is "...to bring Vashti the Queen before > > the king in a royal crown". If you can figure out how to disambiguate it > > to Vashti without distorting the order or adding new non-cmavo (I consider > > fi'o seldasni fe'u to function as a single BAI, so don't consider it to be > > a "significant" word), I'd love to hear it. > > I'd use {fau lo nu vy dasni lo nolmapku}. > That's not too bad, but it introduces words ("vy", "dasni") that are not reflected in the original Hebrew. (vy, I'm willing to accept, though, as probably necessary to avoid the ambiguity, even though the ambiguity exists in the original.) How do you feel about "fau lo nu vy co'e le nobli nolmapku"?

> > "nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is > > in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw. > > The Hebrew word for "crown" includes a "royal" morpheme, > and that same morpheme is used again as a modifier?

Sorry, I didn't mean it in a mrophemic sense, but in a semantic sense. Just as the English "crown" means "a royal or imperial headdress or cap of sovereignty", and is distinct from "hat", so too does the Hebrew "keter", as distinct from "kova". So, of course any "crown" (absent metaphoric uses) is "royal", just as any "keter" is "malchut" (absent metaphoric uses). And yet, both words appear in the Hebrew.

> > > > {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e > > >ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la > > > .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be > > > in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest > > > {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}. > > > > Not that I have any objection per se, but I'm not sure what is gained by it? > > So that {po'onai} and {ji'a} are not modifying the wrong thing. As it is, > {po'onai} modifies {nolraitru} instead of {le nolraitru} (easy to fix > with a {ku}) > and {ji'a} modifies {pacyzu'e} instead of its x2 argument (very hard/ > impossible to fix, given the complexity of the sumti). > Ah, okay, now I understand your objection. How about I simply add the ku, and move the ji'a after "sera'a"? --gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of July, 2008 15:50 GMT

On 7/8/08, lagejyspa wrote: > > But absent any (even quasi-) official lojbanic word, I claim that > someone, somewhere, is gonna have to try to look up and/or > guess what the word means, so no language of origin is inherently > better than other.

I think for cultures, places, etc, the/a local name is inherently preferrable. For animals/plants, something based on the Linnaean species name is at least conventionally what has been preferred. In addition, English is to be especially resisted, because of its dominant place in Lojbanic culture. In the end it boils down to the preference of the user, of course.


> > I'd use {fau lo nu vy dasni lo nolmapku}. > > > That's not too bad, but it introduces words ("vy", "dasni") that are not > reflected in the original Hebrew.

You did say that you don't consider {dasni} quite a "word" in {fi'o se dasni}, but it's hard to see how {fi'o} takes away any of its meaning.

> (vy, I'm willing to accept, though, as probably necessary to avoid > the ambiguity, even though the ambiguity exists in the original.) > How do you feel about "fau lo nu vy co'e le nobli nolmapku"?

Or {fi'o se dasni be vy le nobli nolmapku}. If the original is ambiguous, it might be reasonable to preserve the ambiguity though.


> Just as the English "crown" means "a royal or imperial headdress > or cap of sovereignty", and is distinct from "hat", so too does the > Hebrew "keter", as distinct from "kova". So, of course any "crown" > (absent metaphoric uses) is "royal", just as any "keter" is "malchut" > (absent metaphoric uses). And yet, both words appear in the Hebrew.

I think the explicit redundancy in Lojban produces quite a different effect, but there's no law against redundancy.


> > > > {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e > > > >ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la > > > > .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be > > > > in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest > > > > {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}. > > > Ah, okay, now I understand your objection. How about I simply add the ku, > and move the ji'a after "sera'a"?

I think in {sera'a ji'a}, {ji'a} would have to apply to {sera'a}. For example {bau po'onai la lojban sera'a ji'a la lojban}, "not only *in* Lojban but also

  • about* Lojban".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of July, 2008 00:27 GMT

Comments on chapter 2:

{nolratiru}: typo

{ji'o la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru zi'e poi bandu le ninmu ku'o}: Is {no'u} meant to be {po'u}? Otherwise, why is it {la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u} but {la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru}? Also, here and elsewhere, {no'u/po'u lo} could be replaced by just {noi/poi}.

{ni'o my. goi lo nanmu co xebro cu zvati la cucan. po'u le raltca gi'e selcme zo mordeXAIS. gi'e bersa la .ia,IR. poi bersa la ciMIS poi bersa la kic. poi se lanzu la beniamin. ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e}: Ouch! I would replace {ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e} with {.ije my}

{pu se livbai ... fa lo se livbai poi se livbai}: Three times, in case it wasn't clear what happened to him? :-)

{.ije le citni'u cu melbi fi lo ka velski ce'u gi'e pluka fi lo ka selvi'a}: Would that be {kei gi'e}? Why {ka velski ce'u} rather than {ka skicu ce'u} or {ka ce'u selski}?

{cu lebna la .esTER. seka'a le zdani be le nolraitru}: I would suggest {bevri} instead of {lebna seka'a}.

{.ije xy. sutra lo nu fe lo .ebu se likpu'i .e lo .ebu fatri cu dunda .ebu}: Should be {te fatri}?

{fe ze citni'u co mapti be fi lo ka se dunda fi .ebu ra'i le zdani be le nolraitru kei kei gi'e}: Starting a new sentence would be kind here.

{jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here.

{.i na jungau fa la .esTER. fo le natmi be .ebu be'o .a le dzelanzu be .ebu mu'i lo nu}: {na} is probably {na'e}.

{.i ca lo tcika be ... loi grasu be loi grasrmoru be'o kuce'o lo masti ... cu klama le nolraitru}: I give up on this sentence. If my calculations are correct, {ce'o} is connecting grease with months.

{.i ro terta'a be fi ko'a cu seldu'a fi ko'a tezu'e lo nu klakansa ko'a fo le zdani be loi ninmu fi le zdani be le nolraitru}: "Every thing that they talk about is given to them so that they are accompanied from the house of the women to the house of the king"?

{.i ca lo vanci ko'a klama .ije ca lo cerni ko'a xrukla pe'a}: What is figurative about {xrukla}?

{ji'o la caacygaz. no'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e po'u le bandu be le me'aspe}: Why {no'u ... po'u}?

{.i se lebna fa la .esTER. seka'a le nolraitru}: Again I suggest {bevri} here.

{.i prami fa le nolraitru la .esTER. semau da'a ninmu}: CLL discourages using {semau} like this.

{.ije .ebu ckaji lo ka zabna .e lo ka selxe'o ma'i .abu semau da'a nu'ogle}: Same.

{.i le nolraitru cu zbasu lo balsai co barda}: I meant to comment about this in Ch.1 too. Wouldn't something like {friti} be better than {zbasu seva'u}? It's hard to picture the king making the banquet himself.

{gi'e dunda lo seldunda fi'o selmapti le nolraitru}: {dunda lo seldunda}? What about {dunda lo mapti be le nolraitru}?

{.i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu tai la'e lo termi'e be .ebu bei la mordeXAIS.}: That would suggest that she did tell in some other way.

{.ijebo fe la'e lo selsku be la mordeXAIS. fa la .esTER. zukte sepa'a lo nu pu se rirni .my}: How is her doing what he says parallel to her being his daughter?

{la bigytan. .e la terec. vu'o po'u re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u vu'o poi bandu le vrokoi}: The second {vu'o} is ungrammatical. {zi'e}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 09 of July, 2008 12:48 GMT posts: 350

> On 7/8/08, lagejyspa wrote: > > > > But absent any (even quasi-) official lojbanic word, I claim that > > someone, somewhere, is gonna have to try to look up and/or > > guess what the word means, so no language of origin is inherently > > better than other. > > I think for cultures, places, etc, the/a local name is inherently preferrable.

Actually, I'm pretty okay with that, which is why I am less resistant to making "pars" in preference to "gugrperja" (after all, I used kuc). My remark was directed more to the kunrmarbli/jenmeneikre argument, which are endemic to the whole world. No one place can lay claim to them.

> For animals/plants, something based on the Linnaean species name > is at least conventionally what has been preferred. In addition, English > is to be especially resisted, because of its dominant place in Lojbanic > culture. In the end it boils down to the preference of the user, of course.

Don't worry. you have now passed my last unique fu'ivla use, anyhow. (there's a repetition of Persia and Medea later)

> > > > I'd use {fau lo nu vy dasni lo nolmapku}. > > > > > That's not too bad, but it introduces words ("vy", "dasni") that are not > > reflected in the original Hebrew. > > You did say that you don't consider {dasni} quite a "word" in > {fi'o se dasni}, but it's hard to see how {fi'o} takes away any of its > meaning.

Personal pecadillo. I feel the whole construction makes it essentially a preposition, albeit one that probably doesn't exist in any natlang, and hence "insignificant". For example, I would consider "se klama" to be a significant word, but not fi'o se klama fe'u, since it means exactly the same as seka'a, which would be glossed in most languages simply as "to".

But, in any case: > > > (vy, I'm willing to accept, though, as probably necessary to avoid > > the ambiguity, even though the ambiguity exists in the original.) > > How do you feel about "fau lo nu vy co'e le nobli nolmapku"? > > Or {fi'o se dasni be vy le nobli nolmapku}. If the original is ambiguous, > it might be reasonable to preserve the ambiguity though. >

Yes, I came to that same conclusion last night. It will let some commentator later say "Oh, yes, the servants were adorned in the royal crown, because of this interesting happenstance...." So I will change it back.


> > > > > {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e > > > > >ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la > > > > > .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be > > > > > in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest > > > > > {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}. > > > > > Ah, okay, now I understand your objection. How about I simply add the ku, > > and move the ji'a after "sera'a"? > > I think in {sera'a ji'a}, {ji'a} would have to apply to {sera'a}. For example > {bau po'onai la lojban sera'a ji'a la lojban}, "not only *in* Lojban but also > *about* Lojban". > But isn't that precisely what I want? "Not only ABOUT the king, but ABOUT all the princes and people"? (In doesn't have to be a contrasting BAI, does it?). (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...)

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of July, 2008 14:10 GMT

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM, lagejyspa wrote: >> >> I think in {sera'a ji'a}, {ji'a} would have to apply to {sera'a}. For example >> {bau po'onai la lojban sera'a ji'a la lojban}, "not only *in* Lojban but also >> *about* Lojban". >> > But isn't that precisely what I want? "Not only ABOUT the king, but > ABOUT all the princes and people"?

No, I think you want "Not only about THE KING, but about ALL THE PRINCES AND PEOPLE as well".

> (In doesn't have to be a contrasting BAI, does it?).

Yes, as I understand it, if you mark the BAI then you are saying that that's "the only", "not the only", "an additional", etc. BAI that applies.

> (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...)

"x1 does x2 to x3" is something I have needed often, yes. {frigau} sort of works: "x1 makes x2 experience x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

adamgarrigusPosted by adamgarrigus on Wed 09 of July, 2008 15:06 GMT posts: 92

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM, lagejyspa wrote: > >> > >> I think in {sera'a ji'a}, {ji'a} would have to apply to {sera'a}. For > example > >> {bau po'onai la lojban sera'a ji'a la lojban}, "not only *in* Lojban but > also > >> *about* Lojban". > >> > > But isn't that precisely what I want? "Not only ABOUT the king, but > > ABOUT all the princes and people"? > > No, I think you want "Not only about THE KING, but about ALL THE > PRINCES AND PEOPLE as well". > > > (In doesn't have to be a contrasting BAI, does it?). > > Yes, as I understand it, if you mark the BAI then you are saying > that that's "the only", "not the only", "an additional", etc. BAI that > applies. > > > (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...) > > "x1 does x2 to x3" is something I have needed often, yes. > {frigau} sort of works: "x1 makes x2 experience x3".


You can also tag with {ri'i}. I've tried to retain the Hebrew word order in the suggestion below.

{ri'i le nolraitru po'o nai cu zukte lo palci fa la vacTIC poi noltruni'u ku'o ri'i fu'e ji'a ro nobli e ro prenu poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la axacyveROC poi nolraitru fu'o}

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 09 of July, 2008 15:42 GMT posts: 350

> Comments on chapter 2: > > {nolratiru}: typo

Twice, no less... wonder how that slipped through?


> {ji'o la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru zi'e poi bandu le ninmu > ku'o}: Is {no'u} meant to be {po'u}? Otherwise, why is it {la vacTIC. > po'u le noltruni'u} but {la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru}? > Also, here and elsewhere, {no'u/po'u lo} could be replaced by just > {noi/poi}.

Yes, I did vacillate somewhat between using noi/poi vs. no'u/po'u. Indeed, in several places I literally changed it back and forth several times. My feelings are in general, with Hebrew phrases like "melex axacyveroc" (King Ahasuerus), as a title, "no'u" conveyed it best. Conversely, when the Hebrew uses "axacyveroc hamelex" (Ahasuerus, the king), "po'u" conveys the sense of _this_ Ahasuerus, as opposed to the garbage man of the same name. But I haven't been consistent. As to poi vs. po'u, I basically use "poi" iff the Hebrew "asher" (which, that) appears.

Here, it's "Hegeh, the servant of the king, (a) guardian of the women." As such, I'm gonna change it to "la xeGES. po'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e no'u lo bandu be le ninmu".

> > {ni'o my. goi lo nanmu co xebro cu zvati la cucan. po'u le raltca gi'e > selcme zo mordeXAIS. gi'e bersa la .ia,IR. poi bersa la ciMIS poi > bersa la kic. poi se lanzu la beniamin. ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e}: Ouch! I > would replace {ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e} with {.ije my} >

So would I, had I been the guy writing this in lojban (as did the the writers of Septuagint). Unfortunately, we are connected with "who...." (asher). Verse 6 is really nothing more than a relative clause that refers all the way back to "a Jew", not a separate sentence at all. But there is no way in lojban (or is there?) to hook a relative clause back to a subject that has had an intervening bridi, so I took a bit of translator's license and made it a gi'e. Here's the literal translation of the Hebrew into English:

There was a Jew in Shushan the capital, and his name was Mordecai, son of Yair, son of Shimi, son of Kish, a man of Benjamin, who {Mordecai} had been exiled from Jerusalem with the exiles that had been exiled with Jeconiah, king of Judah which had been exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

> {pu se livbai ... fa lo se livbai poi se livbai}: Three times, in > case it wasn't clear what happened to him? :-) >

Four times, actually, the same as the Hebrew (see above). I'm guessing this literary device is because the exile is such a culture-defining event for us, Mordecai/Esther (the putative authros of the book) wanted to be emphasize it.

> {.ije le citni'u cu melbi fi lo ka velski ce'u gi'e pluka fi lo ka > selvi'a}: Would that be {kei gi'e}?

Yes. Thanks

> Why {ka velski ce'u} rather than > {ka skicu ce'u} or {ka ce'u selski}?

Or maybe even ka jvinu would be better?

The Hebrew "toar" is a hard word to pin down. It means description, but it also means (as here) appearance. So I was trying to convey "a description of her" with the description having the higher precedence, with the x3 and x4 of velski being zi'o-ed, for all we care.

> {cu lebna la .esTER. seka'a le zdani be le nolraitru}: I would suggest > {bevri} instead of {lebna seka'a}.

This is another place I vacillated, and still might change. The Hebrew used is "vatelikach", was taken. The Hebrew implies the same as lebna, to dispossess. She wasn't simply "brought" (Hebrew hivei). Some suddenness/force seems to be implied here, so I tried to keep that mood.

> {.ije xy. sutra lo nu fe lo .ebu se likpu'i .e lo .ebu fatri cu dunda > .ebu}: Should be {te fatri}?

Yes, you are right. Thanks

> > {fe ze citni'u co mapti be fi lo ka se dunda fi .ebu ra'i le zdani be > le nolraitru kei kei gi'e}: Starting a new sentence would be kind > here. >

Yes, you are right, and it wouldn't be inconsistent with what I've done elsewhere.

> {jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi > ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here.

The Hebrew literally means "He changed her and her maidens for the good, the house of the women". This has caused problems for translators, but most agree there is an elision here, and that it means something like "He switched them to a better place in the house of the women." So in my lojban, he modified their property of their being in the house of woman by a beneficial amount.

> > {.i na jungau fa la .esTER. fo le natmi be .ebu be'o .a le dzelanzu be > .ebu mu'i lo nu}: {na} is probably {na'e}. >

I have no problems with your sugg. Is that because the way I have it might imply that she could have told for some other reason?

> {.i ca lo tcika be ... loi grasu be loi grasrmoru be'o kuce'o lo > masti ... cu klama le nolraitru}: I give up on this sentence. If my > calculations are correct, {ce'o} is connecting grease with months. >

Hmm.. let me recheck... You're right. I'm missing a second be'o right after the first one. (forgot I had a subordinate be phrase) The months should be in sequence, not the months with the oil. Try it now.

> {.i ro terta'a be fi ko'a cu seldu'a fi ko'a tezu'e lo nu klakansa > ko'a fo le zdani be loi ninmu fi le zdani be le nolraitru}: "Every > thing that they talk about is given to them so that they are > accompanied from the house of the women to the house of the king"?

Almost. Except the implied X1 of "lo nu klakansa..." is the same as the X1 of the main sentence, thus, "Every thing that they talked about was given to them to accompany them..." (In more vernacular English, everything they asked for was given to them to take with them.)

> {.i ca lo vanci ko'a klama .ije ca lo cerni ko'a xrukla pe'a}: What is > figurative about {xrukla}? >

Well, because she wasn't returned to where she was before, but to a second harem. Hence it's not a "returning" at all.

> {ji'o la caacygaz. no'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e po'u le bandu be > le me'aspe}: Why {no'u ... po'u}? >

Because it says he was the servant of the king (a mere description), the keeper of the women (a distinction from other servants of the king who might have been named Shaashgaz).

> {.i se lebna fa la .esTER. seka'a le nolraitru}: Again I suggest {bevri} here. >

And again, I'm of two minds wink

> {.i prami fa le nolraitru la .esTER. semau da'a ninmu}: CLL > discourages using {semau} like this. >

Right. I'll attach it with ne, as CLL says.

> {.ije .ebu ckaji lo ka zabna .e lo ka selxe'o ma'i .abu semau da'a > nu'ogle}: Same.

Ditto

> > {.i le nolraitru cu zbasu lo balsai co barda}: I meant to comment > about this in Ch.1 too. Wouldn't something like {friti} be better than > {zbasu seva'u}? It's hard to picture the king making the banquet > himself.

True, but yet that's what the text says.

> > {gi'e dunda lo seldunda fi'o selmapti le nolraitru}: {dunda lo > seldunda}? What about {dunda lo mapti be le nolraitru}?

Yeah, I know, but it says, "he gave gifts..." Again, if I was writing in lojban directly, I'd do it, but here I feel more constrained.

> > {.i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be > .ebu tai la'e lo termi'e be .ebu bei la mordeXAIS.}: That would > suggest that she did tell in some other way. >

Would that still be true if I used "i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu itaibo termi'e .ebu la mordeXAIS."? Or would the .i stop the scope of the na? And will that erroneously change the meaning here? (I know I can change "naku la ester" to "la ester na'e" . Just exploring other avenues to preserve word order.)

> {.ijebo fe la'e lo selsku be la mordeXAIS. fa la .esTER. zukte sepa'a > lo nu pu se rirni .my}: How is her doing what he says > parallel to her being his daughter?

She acts according to the words of Mordechai just as she did when he was raising her.

> > {la bigytan. .e la terec. vu'o po'u re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u > vu'o poi bandu le vrokoi}: The second {vu'o} is ungrammatical. {zi'e}? >

You sure it's ungrammatical? jbofi'e likes it. And it brackets differently. With zi'e, it is a descriptor of "le selfu...", whereas with vu'o, it is a descriptor of "re le selfu...". That being said, I think I do wan't zi'e here, anyhow.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 09 of July, 2008 15:57 GMT posts: 350

> > > (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...) > > > > "x1 does x2 to x3" is something I have needed often, yes. > > {frigau} sort of works: "x1 makes x2 experience x3". > > > You can also tag with {ri'i}. I've tried to retain the Hebrew word order in > the suggestion below.

Ah, I've never thought of that. That will probably apply many many times through this book. Thanks. >

> {ri'i le nolraitru po'o nai cu zukte lo palci fa la vacTIC poi noltruni'u > ku'o ri'i fu'e ji'a ro nobli e ro prenu poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la > axacyveROC poi nolraitru fu'o} > An excellent suggestion, and I will use it. Question: if I were to change it to ri'inai le nolraitru po'o cu.... what does that mean? Does that mean it that it is (not experienced) by only the king", which wouild of course be a bad thing.... --gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of July, 2008 16:58 GMT

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, lagejyspa wrote: > >> {ni'o my. goi lo nanmu co xebro cu zvati la cucan. po'u le raltca gi'e >> selcme zo mordeXAIS. gi'e bersa la .ia,IR. poi bersa la ciMIS poi >> bersa la kic. poi se lanzu la beniamin. ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e}: Ouch! I >> would replace {ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e} with {.ije my} > > So would I, had I been the guy writing this in lojban (as did the the > writers of Septuagint). Unfortunately, we are connected with "who...." > (asher). Verse 6 is really nothing more than a relative clause that refers > all the way back to "a Jew", not a separate sentence at all. But there is > no way in lojban (or is there?) to hook a relative clause back to a subject > that has had an intervening bridi, so I took a bit of translator's license and > made it a gi'e.

OK, but since {gi'e} is just a variant of {.ije}, you could just as well choose {.ije} instead of {gi'e} and save the reader much hardship.

> Here's the literal translation of the Hebrew into English: > > There was a Jew in Shushan the capital, and his name was Mordecai, son > of Yair, son of Shimi, son of Kish, a man of Benjamin, who {Mordecai} had > been exiled from Jerusalem with the exiles that had been exiled with > Jeconiah, king of Judah which had been exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, king > of Babylon.

I suppose you could use {ku'o ku'o ku'o fa my noi ...} if you had to use a relative clause there, but I'm not sure carrying translation faithfulness to such extremes is worth it. Unless I'm missing something, nothing is lost by starting a new sentence here.

>> {pu se livbai ... fa lo se livbai poi se livbai}: Three times, in >> case it wasn't clear what happened to him? :-) > > Four times, actually, the same as the Hebrew (see above).

But the fourth refers to someone else (la iixanias).

>> {jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi >> ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here. > > The Hebrew literally means "He changed her and her maidens > for the good, the house of the women". This has caused problems > for translators, but most agree there is an elision here, and that > it means something like "He switched them to a better place > in the house of the women." So in my lojban, he modified their > property of their being in the house of woman by a beneficial > amount.

It's not clear that {lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi ninmu kei} is their property of their being in the house of woman, or the house of woman's property of housing them, or some other property of something else. I don't think a {ka} without a {ce'u} place really makes much sense. I also don't think the x2 of {stika} should be a property, because there is no place for the one with the property. I would suggest: {cnegau .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u lo ka zvati le zdani be loi ninmu kei lo xamgu}.

>> {.i na jungau fa la .esTER. fo le natmi be .ebu be'o .a le dzelanzu be >> .ebu mu'i lo nu}: {na} is probably {na'e}. > > I have no problems with your sugg. Is that because the way > I have it might imply that she could have told for some other reason?

Right.

>> {.i ca lo tcika be ... loi grasu be loi grasrmoru be'o kuce'o lo >> masti ... cu klama le nolraitru}: I give up on this sentence. If my >> calculations are correct, {ce'o} is connecting grease with months. > > Hmm.. let me recheck... > You're right. I'm missing a second be'o right after the first one. > (forgot I had a subordinate be phrase) The months should be in > sequence, not the months with the oil. Try it now.

I find it too convoluted to follow.

>> {ji'o la caacygaz. no'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e po'u le bandu be >> le me'aspe}: Why {no'u ... po'u}? > > Because it says he was the servant of the king (a mere description), > the keeper of the women (a distinction from other servants of the king > who might have been named Shaashgaz).

When you say that he was a servant of the king, we still don't know which Shaashgaz you're talking about? As we dicussed before, the nonrestrictive-restrictive order of subordinate clauses makes no sense to me.

If the distinction is meant to be from other servants of the king, rather than from other Saashgazes, {zi'e} should be replaced by {be'o}.

>> {.i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be >> .ebu tai la'e lo termi'e be .ebu bei la mordeXAIS.}: That would >> suggest that she did tell in some other way. > > Would that still be true if I used "i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le > dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu itaibo termi'e .ebu > la mordeXAIS."? Or would the .i stop the scope of the na?

{.i} stops the scope of {na}.

> And will that erroneously change the meaning here?

It's a sightly diferent meaning. In the first cae you have {la'e lo termi'e} as the tai, in the second case you have {lo nu minde} as the tai.

> (I know I can > change "naku la ester" to "la ester na'e" . Just exploring other > avenues to preserve word order.) > >> {.ijebo fe la'e lo selsku be la mordeXAIS. fa la .esTER. zukte sepa'a >> lo nu pu se rirni .my}: How is her doing what he says >> parallel to her being his daughter? > > She acts according to the words of Mordechai just as she > did when he was raising her.

But the "she did when" is missing from the Lojban.


>> {la bigytan. .e la terec. vu'o po'u re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u >> vu'o poi bandu le vrokoi}: The second {vu'o} is ungrammatical. {zi'e}? > > You sure it's ungrammatical? jbofi'e likes it.

Ah, ok. It just doesn't do anything then, since there is no connected sumti but just the single sumti {re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u}.

> And it brackets differently. With zi'e, it is a descriptor of "le selfu...", > whereas with vu'o, it is a descriptor of "re le selfu...". That being said, > I think I do wan't zi'e here, anyhow.

With {zi'e} it's a second restrictor of {la bigytan. .e la terec.}, right?

mu'o mi' xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of July, 2008 17:06 GMT

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM, lagejyspa wrote: > > Question: if I were to change it to ri'inai le nolraitru po'o cu.... > what does that mean? Does that mean it that it is > (not experienced) by only the king", which wouild of course be a bad thing....

Right. Strictly, without {ku} it's "the one that is only king" rather than "only the king".

mu'o mi e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

clsnPosted by clsn on Wed 09 of July, 2008 19:01 GMT posts: 84

lagejyspa wrote:

> Re: Esther > > Author: lagejyspa > > >> {ji'o la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru zi'e poi bandu le ninmu >> ku'o}: Is {no'u} meant to be {po'u}? Otherwise, why is it {la vacTIC. >> po'u le noltruni'u} but {la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru}? >> Also, here and elsewhere, {no'u/po'u lo} could be replaced by just >> {noi/poi}. >> > > Yes, I did vacillate somewhat between using noi/poi vs. no'u/po'u. Indeed, in several places I literally changed it back and forth several times. My feelings are in general, with Hebrew phrases like "melex axacyveroc" (King Ahasuerus), as a title, "no'u" conveyed it best. Conversely, when the Hebrew uses "axacyveroc hamelex" (Ahasuerus, the king), "po'u" conveys the sense of _this_ Ahasuerus, as opposed to the garbage man of the same name. But I haven't been consistent. As to poi vs. po'u, I basically use "poi" iff the Hebrew "asher" (which, that) appears. > > Here, it's "Hegeh, the servant of the king, (a) guardian of the women." As such, I'm gonna change it to "la xeGES. po'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e no'u lo bandu be le ninmu". > Since there isn't that much difference in the Hebrew between the noun and the participle (well, I mean, they're the same word), so you could just as well say {la xeGES. noi selfu le nolraitru zi'enoi bandu le ninmu}. I've gone with "noi" because it doesn't seem restrictive to me ("wait, WHICH Hege are we talking about...?"). Though actually {noi le selfu be le nolraitru zi'enoi bandu le ninmu} is probably better for the Hebrew, since the "eunuch of the King" is not a verb participle.

>> {jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi >> ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here. >> > > The Hebrew literally means "He changed her and her maidens for the good, the house of the women". This has caused problems for translators, but most agree there is an elision here, and that it means something like "He switched them to a better place in the house of the women." So in my lojban, he modified their property of their being in the house of woman by a beneficial amount. > "To a better place in the house" makes sense literally too... "to the good places of the house of the women".

I'm blanking on an example here, and maybe I'm just plain wrong, but can't the verb (vayishaneha) also mean "to treat preferentially"? i.e. he treated her and her maids preferentially, to the best the harem had to offer.

~mark

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 10 of July, 2008 19:24 GMT posts: 350

Sorry, I didn't realize, after having written my big response, that there was a couple of cross posts while writing the next one.... xorxes: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, lagejyspa wrote: > > > >> {ni'o my. goi lo nanmu co xebro cu zvati la cucan. po'u le raltca gi'e > >> selcme zo mordeXAIS. gi'e bersa la .ia,IR. poi bersa la ciMIS poi > >> bersa la kic. poi se lanzu la beniamin. ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e}: Ouch! I > >> would replace {ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e} with {.ije my} > > snip > > I suppose you could use {ku'o ku'o ku'o fa my noi ...} if you had to use a > relative clause there, but I'm not sure carrying translation > faithfulness to such > extremes is worth it. Unless I'm missing something, nothing is lost by > starting a new sentence here.

Just for you, I will biggrin Not MY fault that lojban requires all those unelidable terminators to make it unambiguous..

> >> {pu se livbai ... fa lo se livbai poi se livbai}: Three times, in > >> case it wasn't clear what happened to him? :-) > > > > Four times, actually, the same as the Hebrew (see above). > > But the fourth refers to someone else (la iixanias). > Strictly speaking, the middle two don't refer to to the same thing as the first, either. The first is Mordechai, the middle two are the exiles that Nebuchadnezzar exiled.

> >> {jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi > >> ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here. > > > > The Hebrew literally means "He changed her and her maidens > > for the good, the house of the women". This has caused problems > > for translators, but most agree there is an elision here, and that > > it means something like "He switched them to a better place > > in the house of the women." So in my lojban, he modified their > > property of their being in the house of woman by a beneficial > > amount. > > It's not clear that {lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani > be loi ninmu kei} is their property of their being in the house of > woman, or the house of woman's property of housing them, or > some other property of something else. I don't think a {ka} > without a {ce'u} place really makes much sense.

I never understood that POV. If I wanted to say, for example, that, the world is beautiful to me in the aspect of people loving animals, why can't I say "le terdi cu melbi mi lo ka loi prenu cu prami loi danlu" as the x3 doesn't directly involve the x1 at all? (Yes, you could add "tu'i ce'u" to the end, or soemthing similar, but then, you could always say that a ka with all X places filled should be understood to have an implicit "do'e ce'u" attached. In fact, didn't you state that extra Xn places mean exactly that (do'e Xn)? And since a ka without a ce'u is presumed to have the ce'u in the first available place, the implicit semantic assumptioin works.

> I also don't > think the x2 of {stika} should be a property, because there is > no place for the one with the property.

And yet, that's EXACTLY what the gi'uste says it must be (that, or ni) The "one with the property" is inside the ka. (Now, I will admit the possibility that stika's X1 is one with the property, but that seems way too limiting).

> I would suggest: {cnegau .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u lo ka zvati le zdani be loi > ninmu kei lo xamgu}. > But since gi'uste practically explicitly states that stika is the agentive form of cenba, I'm not sure what you are getting out of it. (Actually, I do understand your reasoning. But it's only necessary if "complete ka's" aren't allowed/understood. Actually, you could also cenba as opposed to cnegau (with appropriate place ordering), shoe-horning tu'a xeges in the x4 place under the rubric of a "condition"

> >> {.i na jungau fa la .esTER. fo le natmi be .ebu be'o .a le dzelanzu be > >> .ebu mu'i lo nu}: {na} is probably {na'e}. > > > > I have no problems with your sugg. Is that because the way > > I have it might imply that she could have told for some other reason? > > Right. > > >> {.i ca lo tcika be ... loi grasu be loi grasrmoru be'o kuce'o lo > >> masti ... cu klama le nolraitru}: I give up on this sentence. If my > >> calculations are correct, {ce'o} is connecting grease with months. > > > > Hmm.. let me recheck... > > You're right. I'm missing a second be'o right after the first one. > > (forgot I had a subordinate be phrase) The months should be in > > sequence, not the months with the oil. Try it now. > > I find it too convoluted to follow. > > >> {ji'o la caacygaz. no'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e po'u le bandu be > >> le me'aspe}: Why {no'u ... po'u}? > > > > Because it says he was the servant of the king (a mere description), > > the keeper of the women (a distinction from other servants of the king > > who might have been named Shaashgaz). > > When you say that he was a servant of the king, we still don't > know which Shaashgaz you're talking about? As we dicussed before, > the nonrestrictive-restrictive order of subordinate clauses makes no > sense to me. > > If the distinction is meant to be from other servants of the king, > rather than from other Saashgazes, {zi'e} should be replaced > by {be'o}. >

But again, I'm not postulating he is distinguished just from other servants, but specifically from servants with the same name. It's moot now, because I changed it anyhow.

> >> {.i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be > >> .ebu tai la'e lo termi'e be .ebu bei la mordeXAIS.}: That would > >> suggest that she did tell in some other way. > > > > Would that still be true if I used "i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le > > dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu itaibo termi'e .ebu > > la mordeXAIS."? Or would the .i stop the scope of the na? > > {.i} stops the scope of {na}. > > > And will that erroneously change the meaning here? > > It's a sightly diferent meaning. In the first case you have > {la'e lo termi'e} as the tai, in the second case you have > {lo nu minde} as the tai. >

But the underlying message would be the same? She didn't tell...as she had been commanded by Mordechai?

> > (I know I can > > change "naku la ester" to "la ester na'e" . Just exploring other > > avenues to preserve word order.) > > > >> {.ijebo fe la'e lo selsku be la mordeXAIS. fa la .esTER. zukte sepa'a > >> lo nu pu se rirni .my}: How is her doing what he says > >> parallel to her being his daughter? > > > > She acts according to the words of Mordechai just as she > > did when he was raising her. > > But the "she did when" is missing from the Lojban.

Would you prefer "...sepa'a lo nu go'i ca lo nu pu se rirni my."?


> > >> {la bigytan. .e la terec. vu'o po'u re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u > >> vu'o poi bandu le vrokoi}: The second {vu'o} is ungrammatical. {zi'e}? > > > > You sure it's ungrammatical? jbofi'e likes it. > > Ah, ok. It just doesn't do anything then, since there is no connected > sumti but just the single sumti {re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u}. >

Yes, I noticed that when I was experimenting, that le gerku vo'u noi blanu cu klama is perfectly grammatical. Odd, but grammatical.

> > And it brackets differently. With zi'e, it is a descriptor of "le selfu...", > > whereas with vu'o, it is a descriptor of "re le selfu...". That being said, > > I think I do wan't zi'e here, anyhow. > > With {zi'e} it's a second restrictor of {la bigytan. .e la terec.}, right?

Right. Although I think when I was researching the Hebrew in this case, it was ambiguous to me whether in fact it was supposed to be "B&T, 2 of the king's servants, who kept the door." or ""B&T, 2 of the king's servants that kept the door".

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 10 of July, 2008 19:42 GMT posts: 350

clsn:

> lagejyspa wrote:

>

> >

> > Here, it's "Hegeh, the servant of the king, (a) guardian of the women." As such, I'm gonna change it to "la xeGES. po'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e no'u lo bandu be le ninmu".

> >

> Since there isn't that much difference in the Hebrew between the noun

> and the participle (well, I mean, they're the same word), so you could

> just as well say {la xeGES. noi selfu le nolraitru zi'enoi bandu le

> ninmu}.

Yes, and it does share that interesting noun/verb conflation with lojban wink ("hu omer" -> "he talks", "he is a talker"), but since the parallel construction here suggests a noun rather than verb (because as you say, saris is only a noun), and also because, had it been a verb, I think it would have been in the past tense as the rest of the story is.

> I've gone with "noi" because it doesn't seem restrictive to me

> ("wait, WHICH Hege are we talking about...?"). Though actually {noi le

> selfu be le nolraitru zi'enoi bandu le ninmu} is probably better for the

> Hebrew, since the "eunuch of the King" is not a verb participle.

>

I think you meant "no'u le selfu...."

> >> {jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi

> >> ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here.

> >>

> >

> > The Hebrew literally means "He changed her and her maidens for the good, the

> >house of the women". This has caused problems for translators, but most agree

> >there is an elision here, and that it means something like "He switched them to a

> >better place in the house of the women." So in my lojban, he modified their

> >property of their being in the house of woman by a beneficial amount.

> >

> "To a better place in the house" makes sense literally too... "to the

> good places of the house of the women".

>

> I'm blanking on an example here, and maybe I'm just plain wrong, but

> can't the verb (vayishaneha) also mean "to treat preferentially"? i.e.

> he treated her and her maids preferentially, to the best the harem had

> to offer.

Well, the root, shina is to to switch, change, modify, alter. So, if it has a meaning of favoring, I don't know it (which in and of itself means nothing). (bichor and adaf (he,edif) seem to have that flavor, though)

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of July, 2008 20:20 GMT

On 7/10/08, lagejyspa wrote:

>

> Not MY fault that lojban requires

> all those unelidable terminators to make it unambiguous..

I use the unelidability terminators as a style guide: If I need to

use one, I try to reword so as not to need it, the result will usually

be more clear. If I need two in a row, definitely rewrite, otherwise

the result is a muddle. More than two in a row leads to maddness.

> > >> {pu se livbai ... fa lo se livbai poi se livbai}: Three times, in

> > >> case it wasn't clear what happened to him? :-)

> > >

> > > Four times, actually, the same as the Hebrew (see above).

> >

> > But the fourth refers to someone else (la iixanias).

> >

> Strictly speaking, the middle two don't refer to to the same thing

> as the first, either. The first is Mordechai, the middle two are the

> exiles that Nebuchadnezzar exiled.

I misunderstood then. That's a problem with filling the same slot

twice. It's hard to tell if that means just two different descriptions of

the same thing, or two different things that happen to be doing the

same thing.

In any case, if the middle two are the exiles that N exiled, so is the

first one, because they fill its x1.

> > I don't think a {ka}

> > without a {ce'u} place really makes much sense.

>

> I never understood that POV. If I wanted to say, for example, that,

> the world is beautiful to me in the aspect of people loving animals,

> why can't I say "le terdi cu melbi mi lo ka loi prenu cu prami loi danlu"

> as the x3 doesn't directly involve the x1 at all? (Yes, you could add

> "tu'i ce'u" to the end, or soemthing similar,

Right, that's fine.

> but then, you could always say that a ka with all X places filled

> should be understood to have an implicit "do'e ce'u" attached.

OK. But how will that work in your stika example? {lo ka .ebu

.e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi ninmu kei} is a property of

something unnamed (let's say it's a property of the keeper of the

house). That property is changed for the better. Now the keeper

(or whoever) has a different property (maybe what changed were

the inhabitants of the house?). How did that benefit .ebu and her

maids? How do we know that it was a property of .ebu that was

changed for the better?

> In fact, didn't you state that extra Xn places mean exactly that

> (do'e Xn)? And since a ka without a ce'u is presumed to have the

> ce'u in the first available place, the implicit semantic assumptioin

> works.

Right. So I don't understand what {stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u

cu zvati le zdani be loi ninmu do'e co'e kei lo xamgu} means. In part

because I don't understand what a {ka} in x2 of stika really means.

Talk of a property without knowing whose property we're concerned

with is very abstract. Fortunately, very few gismu have this problem

that stika as defined has.

> > I also don't

> > think the x2 of {stika} should be a property, because there is

> > no place for the one with the property.

>

> And yet, that's EXACTLY what the gi'uste says it must be

> (that, or ni)

Yes, my objection was to the gi'uste definition in general, not specifically

to your use.

> The "one with the property" is inside the ka. (Now, I will admit the

> possibility that stika's X1 is one with the property, but that seems

> way too limiting).

And not likely to be the intention, since that would just be {cenba}.

> > I would suggest: {cnegau .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u lo ka zvati le zdani be loi

> > ninmu kei lo xamgu}.

> >

> But since gi'uste practically explicitly states that stika is the agentive

> form of cenba, I'm not sure what you are getting out of it.

"x1 makes x2 change in property x3 by amount x4" is clear to me.

That's {cnegau}, but that is not what {stika} is.

> (Actually, I do understand your reasoning. But it's only necessary if

> "complete ka's" aren't allowed/understood. Actually, you could also

> cenba as opposed to cnegau (with appropriate place ordering),

> shoe-horning tu'a xeges in the x4 place under the rubric of a "condition"

I use {stika}, when I use it, as meaning "x1 changes x2 in aspect x3",

so basically as {cnegau}, not with a property in x2.

> > > Would that still be true if I used "i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le

> > > dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu itaibo termi'e .ebu

> > > la mordeXAIS."?

> >

> > > And will that erroneously change the meaning here?

> >

> > It's a sightly diferent meaning. In the first case you have

> > {la'e lo termi'e} as the tai, in the second case you have

> > {lo nu minde} as the tai.

>

> But the underlying message would be the same? She didn't tell...

> as she had been commanded by Mordechai?

It seems to me that with {itaibo} you are comparing the act of not

telling with the act of commanding, rather than with the command

given.

> > >> {.ijebo fe la'e lo selsku be la mordeXAIS. fa la .esTER. zukte sepa'a

> > >> lo nu pu se rirni .my}: How is her doing what he says

> > >> parallel to her being his daughter?

> > >

> > > She acts according to the words of Mordechai just as she

> > > did when he was raising her.

> >

> > But the "she did when" is missing from the Lojban.

>

> Would you prefer "...sepa'a lo nu go'i ca lo nu pu se rirni my."?

Yes, but {no'a} instead of {go'i}.

(Leaving aside my usual misgivings about {panra} and its odd x3.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of July, 2008 23:25 GMT

Comments on chapter 3.

{gi'e punji lo xy. stizu ga'u loi ro nobli poi kansa xy.}: That's not

the same as {punji lo xy stizu lo gapru be loi ro nobli poi kansa xy}

{.sy. jungau la xaMAN. mu'i lo nu facki da'i lo du'u renvi kei le

selsku be la mordeXAIS.}: "motivated by a would-be discovery

of a survival"?

{jugau}: typo

{mo'i ni'a renro la'o py. pur py.}: Why not just {la pur}? I would say

{renro py lo cnita} rather than {mo'i ni'a} which makes me think of a

throw made in some unspecified direction while parachuting, or

something like that.

{.ijebo le nolraitru fi lino terva'i fe lo za'i nalra'u da}: A number

can't really be the value here, and is it really the _value_ of not

disturbing them that is at issue? Isn't it more like {le nolraitru

noda se prali lo za'i nalra'u da}?

{.ijebo fi li panoki'o tu'a lo bundrkikra fe lo ni rijno kei fa mi

juntymre fi'o te dunda lo xance be lo gunka tezu'e lo nu muvgau by. le

sorcu po'e lo nolraitru}: {po} rather than {po'e}, right? The store is

not part of the king's body. {by} is {lo bundrkikra}? The scale for

the measurement? I don't quite grasp this sentence.

{cusku fa le nolraitru fi la xaMAN. fe lu le rijno ca se dunda fi do

... }: missing {li'u}.

{fi'o selxa'a ro lo selje'a be tai lo selyle'u pe ri. be'o .e ro lo

natmi be bau lo bangu be ri}: This doesn't say what you want (And {ri}

can't have as antecedent the sumti it's embedded in.) You need

termsets here: {nu'i ge tecu'u ro selje'a sepi'o lo selyle'u pe ri gi

tecu'u ro natmi bau lo bangu be ri}

{gi'e se stela le djine po'e le nolraitru}: {fi tu'a le djine}

perhaps? Te ring would not be the seal. Is it really {po'e}?

{gi lebna lo selpo'e pe by.}: {be}?

{tezu'e lo nu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: {tu} doesn't work here. {bi'u} maybe?

{.i le bajra cu ze'o klama co sutra}: {ze'o klama} says the whole

going occured beyond some place, not that they went there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of July, 2008 19:57 GMT

On 7/17/08, lagejyspa wrote:

> >

> > I misunderstood then. That's a problem with filling the same slot

> > twice. It's hard to tell if that means just two different descriptions of

> > the same thing, or two different things that happen to be doing the

> > same thing.

>

> But in any case, would adding a bi'u thus "fa lo bi'u se livbai..." help?

I guess. Even better would be "fi'o se kansa lo se livbai...", if that's

what it means. (It's really a pity that "kansa" doesn't have a BAI.)

> I know it's counterintuitive (not to mention just plain wrong), but I

> can imagine that completely specified ka to not be properties OF

> something, but just free-floating properties. Or, perhaps more

> properly speaking, properties of all their arguments.

Those would be facts (du'u), not properties (ka).

> In other words, "ka mi prami lo mi gerku" can, depending on your

> point of view, be a property of me loving my dog, or my dog being

> loved by me. But it doesn't make a difference. If it increases, it

> increases on both sides. If it ceases, it ceases on both sides. If

> it's incomprehensible to xorxes, it doesn't matter who "owns" the

> property, xorxes doesn't understand it. So what difference does

> it make here?

If it increases, it's presumably a ni. If it ceases, it's a nu. If it's

incomprehensible, it's a du'u.

> Conversely, if a ka is NOT fully argumented, it doesn't really mean

> anything. For example, if I am talking about "mi prane lo ka ce'u

> vrude" then by what standard? And if "mi prane lo ka ce'u vrude

> lo merko" Then "lo merko cu prane lo ka mi vrude ce'u" ("American"

> is a perfect standard for my righteousness). And both would describe

> "prane lo ka mi vrude lo merko"

You cannot conlude from "mi prane lo ka ce'u vrude lo merko" that

"lo merko cu prane lo ka mi vrude ce'u". They are claims about two

different objects, mi and lo merko, and about two different properties,

lo ka ce'u vrude lo merko and lo ka mi vrude ce'u. There is no rule that

says you can derive the second from the first.

> > "x1 makes x2 change in property x3 by amount x4" is clear to me.

> > That's {cnegau}, but that is not what {stika} is.

>

> So, therefore, x2 changes. But here, what changes? Not Esther,

> she's the same.

If she is moved to a different place, she has changed, in the sense

that she now has different properties than what she had before.

> So's the harem, so is Hegai. No, what changes is the property

> of Esther's location within the harem (or the harem's locating of Esther).

"lo du'u .ebu cu diklo makau le zdani be loi ninmu" has changed then.

> > > > > Would that still be true if I used "i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le

> > > > > dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu itaibo termi'e .ebu

> > > > > la mordeXAIS."?

> > > >

> > It seems to me that with {itaibo} you are comparing the act of not

> > telling with the act of commanding, rather than with the command

> > given.

>

> Is there a solution? ".igo'i tai la'e lo termi'e be .ebu bei la mordeXAIS. "

> maybe the simplest that preserves the word order? (I'll just have to

> convince myself that the introduction of go'i isn't "significant")

Yes, I think that's better meaningwise. But why is it so important to

preserve word order at all costs? It's ok to do it to the extent that it's

reasonable, but I don't see why word order is so much more important

than number of words, or number of syllables, or sentence structure,

or ... They are different languages so it's expected that any translation

will sometimes present differences in any of those things.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Re: Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 17 of July, 2008 20:04 GMT posts: 350

> Comments on chapter 3.

>

> {gi'e punji lo xy. stizu ga'u loi ro nobli poi kansa xy.}: That's not

> the same as {punji lo xy stizu lo gapru be loi ro nobli poi kansa xy}

>

Because (I'm guessing you would say) that the first is that the action of placing is taking place above all the nobles, whereas the second says that it is placed at the "above-the-nobles" place?

> {.sy. jungau la xaMAN. mu'i lo nu facki da'i lo du'u renvi kei le

> selsku be la mordeXAIS.}: "motivated by a would-be discovery

> of a survival"?

"...of the statement of Mordechai", yes.

="to see if the words of Mordechai would hold up"

>

> {jugau}: typo

>

Thanks. Fixed.

> {mo'i ni'a renro la'o py. pur py.}: Why not just {la pur}?

I considered it. But I felt this was more in keeping with the tenor of the original, which treats this as a foreign word that would be unfamiliar to a Hebrew, hence the explanation that is written in: They cast before him "pur", that is to say, lots.

> I would say

> {renro py lo cnita} rather than {mo'i ni'a} which makes me think of a

> throw made in some unspecified direction while parachuting, or

> something like that.

Yes, and we've had these discussions before about how you disagree with the CLL on the meaning of mo'i. Chapter 10, ex. 8.1:

8.1) le verba mo'i ri'u cadzu le bisli

The child movement right walks-on the ice.

The child walks toward my right on the ice.

Not "the child walks in some unspecified direction while moving rightward" mo'i specifies the direction along which the bridi is taking place.

> {.ijebo le nolraitru fi lino terva'i fe lo za'i nalra'u da}: A number

> can't really be the value here, and is it really the _value_ of not

> disturbing them that is at issue? Isn't it more like {le nolraitru

> noda se prali lo za'i nalra'u da}?

Well, indeed, I first thought of using "prali", but felt the Hebrew more accurately described "value". However, have RE-researched the issue, I feel that my first instincts were right. Accepting your change. (other than changing "noda" to "node", because we are still in the scope of da being that unspecified people)

>

> {.ijebo fi li panoki'o tu'a lo bundrkikra fe lo ni rijno kei fa mi

> juntymre fi'o te dunda lo xance be lo gunka tezu'e lo nu muvgau by. le

> sorcu po'e lo nolraitru}: {po} rather than {po'e}, right? The store is

> not part of the king's body.

Uh-oh!!! I think I've screwed that up EVERYWHERE. For some reason I've always thought that "po" was the intrinsic, and "po'e" was the extrinsic! See for example right at the beginning — "le nolzda po'e la .axacyveROC."

I'm gonna change everywhere I see it....

> {by} is {lo bundrkikra}? The scale for

> the measurement? I don't quite grasp this sentence.

You're right. I'm wrong. "by" should have been the silver, but now I'm not sure how to get that in there, since rijno isn't a sumti anywhere, just a selbri...help! (it goes without saying, of course, that I don't want to add "lo rijno" instead of "by."

>

> {cusku fa le nolraitru fi la xaMAN. fe lu le rijno ca se dunda fi do

> ... }: missing {li'u}.

>

Thanks. I sometimes miss those because when I running them through jbofi'e, it of course just assumes an elided li'u waaaaay at the end.

I have to go right now. address the rest later:


> {fi'o selxa'a ro lo selje'a be tai lo selyle'u pe ri. be'o .e ro lo

> natmi be bau lo bangu be ri}: This doesn't say what you want (And {ri}

> can't have as antecedent the sumti it's embedded in.) You need

> termsets here: {nu'i ge tecu'u ro selje'a sepi'o lo selyle'u pe ri gi

> tecu'u ro natmi bau lo bangu be ri}

>

> {gi'e se stela le djine po'e le nolraitru}: {fi tu'a le djine}

> perhaps? Te ring would not be the seal. Is it really {po'e}?

>

> {gi lebna lo selpo'e pe by.}: {be}?

>

> {tezu'e lo nu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: {tu} doesn't work here. {bi'u} maybe?

>

> {.i le bajra cu ze'o klama co sutra}: {ze'o klama} says the whole

> going occured beyond some place, not that they went there.

>

> mu'o mi'e xorxes

>

>

>

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of July, 2008 21:41 GMT

On 7/17/08, lagejyspa wrote:

>

> > {gi'e punji lo xy. stizu ga'u loi ro nobli poi kansa xy.}: That's not

> > the same as {punji lo xy stizu lo gapru be loi ro nobli poi kansa xy}

>

> Because (I'm guessing you would say) that the first is that the action

> of placing is taking place above all the nobles, whereas the second

> says that it is placed at the "above-the-nobles" place?

Right.

> > {.sy. jungau la xaMAN. mu'i lo nu facki da'i lo du'u renvi kei le

> > selsku be la mordeXAIS.}: "motivated by a would-be discovery

> > of a survival"?

> "...of the statement of Mordechai", yes.

> ="to see if the words of Mordechai would hold up"

I would say: "mu'i lo nu facki lo du'u xukau (da'i) renvi kei ..."

> > I would say

> > {renro py lo cnita} rather than {mo'i ni'a} which makes me think of a

> > throw made in some unspecified direction while parachuting, or

> > something like that.

>

> Yes, and we've had these discussions before about how you

> disagree with the CLL on the meaning of mo'i. Chapter 10, ex. 8.1:

>

> 8.1) le verba mo'i ri'u cadzu le bisli

> The child movement right walks-on the ice.

> The child walks toward my right on the ice.

>

> Not "the child walks in some unspecified direction while moving

> rightward" mo'i specifies the direction along which the bridi is

> taking place.

In the case of "mo'i ri'u cadzu", my objection was probably just

to using "mo'i" instead of "fa'a", because "cadzu" already contains

the idea of movement so there is no need to add more movement.

"fa'a ri'u cadzu" would be fine to add a direction place, as "cadzu"

does not have one of its own.

In the case of "mo'i ni'a renro", there's two issues: "mo'i" adds

more movement to a selbri that already includes movement, and

it adds a direction place to a selbri that already has a direction

place. I suppose it is possible to interpret the new movement and

direction as being just reinforcements for the same movement and

direction already present in the selbri, but I don't find that very

satisfying.

> > {.ijebo fi li panoki'o tu'a lo bundrkikra fe lo ni rijno kei fa mi

> > juntymre fi'o te dunda lo xance be lo gunka tezu'e lo nu muvgau by. le

> > sorcu po'e lo nolraitru}:

>

> "by" should have been the silver, but now I'm not sure how to get

> that in there, since rijno isn't a sumti anywhere, just a selbri...help!

> (it goes without saying, of course, that I don't want to add "lo rijno"

> instead of "by."

I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the silver

itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

measured.

But I don't think I understand what the sentence means. Is the silver

given to the hands of the workers, or is it to be moved to the king's

treasury?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

adamgarrigus Posted by adamgarrigus on Thu 17 of July, 2008 22:08 GMT posts: 92

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías

wrote:

> > > {.ijebo fi li panoki'o tu'a lo bundrkikra fe lo ni rijno kei fa mi

> > > juntymre fi'o te dunda lo xance be lo gunka tezu'e lo nu muvgau by. le

> > > sorcu po'e lo nolraitru}:

> >

> > "by" should have been the silver, but now I'm not sure how to get

> > that in there, since rijno isn't a sumti anywhere, just a selbri...help!

> > (it goes without saying, of course, that I don't want to add "lo rijno"

> > instead of "by."

>

> I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the silver

> itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

> measured.

>

> But I don't think I understand what the sentence means. Is the silver

> given to the hands of the workers, or is it to be moved to the king's

> treasury?

How about {lo rijno poi bundrkikra li pa no ki'o} ? The Hebrew (`asereth

'alaphim kikar keseph) looks, AFAICT, like a straightforward quantification.

I always reckon a type-3 fu'ivla should have the same place structure as its

first component, although I think that's not codified; still, I think that

formulation is clear. — FWIW I can't make heads nor tails of where the cash

is going either. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Re: Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 21 of July, 2008 15:16 GMT posts: 350

> On 7/17/08, lagejyspa wrote:

> > >

> > > I misunderstood then. That's a problem with filling the same slot

> > > twice. It's hard to tell if that means just two different descriptions of

> > > the same thing, or two different things that happen to be doing the

> > > same thing.

> >

> > But in any case, would adding a bi'u thus "fa lo bi'u se livbai..." help?

>

> I guess. Even better would be "fi'o se kansa lo se livbai...", if that's

> what it means. (It's really a pity that "kansa" doesn't have a BAI.)

>

Added bi'u

>

>

> You cannot conlude from "mi prane lo ka ce'u vrude lo merko" that

> "lo merko cu prane lo ka mi vrude ce'u". They are claims about two

> different objects, mi and lo merko, and about two different properties,

> lo ka ce'u vrude lo merko and lo ka mi vrude ce'u. There is no rule that

> says you can derive the second from the first.

But you are making an artificial distinction that is not there. It is a single property, just viewed from two separate points of view, either of which is valid. If I am perfectly good as an American, then America is a perfect standard for my virtue.

If you are forceful in the property of hitting me, I am forceful in the property of being hit by you. REGARDLESS of the fact that I may have been hit by much harder forces, and to me, it's just a light tap, in the property of being hit /by you/, it's forceful. YMMV

> Yes, I think that's better meaningwise. But why is it so important to

> preserve word order at all costs? It's ok to do it to the extent that it's

> reasonable, but I don't see why word order is so much more important

> than number of words, or number of syllables, or sentence structure,

> or ... They are different languages so it's expected that any translation

> will sometimes present differences in any of those things.

Well, the answer is multifold. First, one of the goals of the lojban was that it should be able to translate most natlang constructs, regardless of word order, etc. That's why FA, SE, etc. exist. (and even in original Loglan, "nu, fu, ju" were the equivalent of SE, although I don't think they had the equivalent of FA). So that someone coming form a Chinese background and was more use to topic sentences, can use zo'u, etc. So why shouldn't I do so? The second, and more metaphysical answer is that the particular source isn't just a story, but is considered sacred by some. Therefore, just as the actual letter sequences have significance (which obviously I can't preserve), so too does the word order. If I was translating a a song (as I've done in past), then the number of syllables become a prime concern (aswell as rhyme). So, yes, of course, some give is inevitable, but I'd like to minimize it. I didn't have any such compunctions in the Berenstain Bears for example, so there is even an example there of a existential prenex, which seemed more natural for the lojban.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 21 of July, 2008 16:03 GMT

On 7/21/08, lagejyspa wrote:

>

> > You cannot conlude from "mi prane lo ka ce'u vrude lo merko" that

> > "lo merko cu prane lo ka mi vrude ce'u". They are claims about two

> > different objects, mi and lo merko, and about two different properties,

> > lo ka ce'u vrude lo merko and lo ka mi vrude ce'u. There is no rule that

> > says you can derive the second from the first.

>

> But you are making an artificial distinction that is not there. It is a

> single property, just viewed from two separate points of view, either

> of which is valid. If I am perfectly good as an American, then America

> is a perfect standard for my virtue.

I disagree. They are two different properties, not one property viewed from

two points of view. In one case it is you who is perfect (in some respect)

and in the other case it is the american standard which is perfect (in some

other respect). To know whether you are perfect in that property, you would

have to compare yourself with other people with the same property, to

know whether the standard is perfect in a property, you would compare it

with other standards sharing that property.

I'm not sure what exactly it is that makes a standard perfect, so the

example is not ideal, but consider this other example:

(1) la djan traji lo ka ce'u prami la alis

John is superlative in loving Alice.

John is the one that loves Alice the most.

(2) la alis traji lo ka la djan prami ce'u

Alice is superlative in being loved by John.

Alice is the one John loves the most.

(1) and (2) make quite different claims. Either can be true while the

other is false. The property {lo ka ce'u prami la alis} is one shared

by everyone who loves Alice, the property {lo ka la djan prami ce'u}

is shared by all those loved by John, two completely different

properties, probably had by a different set of people.

> If you are forceful in the property of hitting me, I am forceful in

> the property of being hit by you. REGARDLESS of the fact that

> I may have been hit by much harder forces, and to me, it's just

> a light tap, in the property of being hit /by you/, it's forceful. YMMV

I don't know what it means for someone to be forceful in a property.

Are you thinking of "bapli"? But "bapli" is not about something being

forceful in some property, it's about something forcing something

else. I expect those two somethings to be events, not properties.

"bapli" and "stika" seem to be the only two gismu whose definitions

require a property in a place and provide no place for the one with

the property. (There are two or three others like {cumki} or {lakne}

that ask for (event/state/property), but there one can safely ignore

the property. In the cases of {bapli} and {stika} the definition simply

seems wrong.

Here is a more comprehensive analysis of gismu with properties that

I once did: {BPFK gismu Section: Problems With ka}

.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Re: Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 21 of July, 2008 16:17 GMT posts: 350

> Comments on chapter 3.

>

> {fi'o selxa'a ro lo selje'a be tai lo selyle'u pe ri. be'o .e ro lo

> natmi be bau lo bangu be ri}: This doesn't say what you want (And {ri}

> can't have as antecedent the sumti it's embedded in.) You need

> termsets here: {nu'i ge tecu'u ro selje'a sepi'o lo selyle'u pe ri gi

> tecu'u ro natmi bau lo bangu be ri}

>

I'm not sure what your first sentence means aside from the parenthetical part, which you are right about. Anyway, your solution is good.. using it.

> {gi'e se stela le djine po'e le nolraitru}: {fi tu'a le djine}

> perhaps? The ring would not be the seal.

You sure? I would think the X1 of stela is broad enough to allow lo djine cu stela ko'a fi lo prina be fi vo'a

> Is it really {po'e}?

No, and it has already been fixed by the last iteration (which you already know by now. I'm just answering this for historic purposes.)

>

> {gi lebna lo selpo'e pe by.}: {be}?

>

Corrected. Thanks

> {tezu'e lo nu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: {tu} doesn't work here. {bi'u} maybe?

>

I wonder if "zu" might not be the best of all (being the temporal equivalent of "bu")?

> {.i le bajra cu ze'o klama co sutra}: {ze'o klama} says the whole

> going occured beyond some place, not that they went there.

Agreed. I'm adding in a mo'i (even though I know in advance you won't agree with /that/, either)

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 21 of July, 2008 16:33 GMT

On 7/21/08, lagejyspa wrote:

>

> I would think the X1 of stela is broad enough to allow

> lo djine cu stela ko'a fi lo prina be fi vo'a

I see the ring as the ckiku rather than as the

stela = se ckiku.

> > {tezu'e lo nu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: {tu} doesn't work here. {bi'u} maybe?

> >

>

> I wonder if "zu" might not be the best of all (being the temporal

> equivalent of "bu")?

Is it meant to be "that (mentioned) day" or "that (far off) day"?

(I meant "bi'unai" rather than "bi'u". I always confuse those two.)

> > {.i le bajra cu ze'o klama co sutra}: {ze'o klama} says the whole

> > going occured beyond some place, not that they went there.

>

> Agreed. I'm adding in a mo'i (even though I know in advance

> you won't agree with /that/, either)

I'd use "fa'a" rather than "mo'i", since we already know that "bajra"

involves movement, but this is not so bad as when using a spatial

tense with a selbri that aleady has a place for what the tense is

adding.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 21 of July, 2008 19:48 GMT posts: 350

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 7/21/08, lagejyspa wrote:

> I'm not sure what exactly it is that makes a standard perfect, so the

> example is not ideal, but consider this other example:

>

> (1) la djan traji lo ka ce'u prami la alis

> John is superlative in loving Alice.

> John is the one that loves Alice the most.

>

> (2) la alis traji lo ka la djan prami ce'u

> Alice is superlative in being loved by John.

> Alice is the one John loves the most.

>

> (1) and (2) make quite different claims. Either can be true while the

> other is false. The property {lo ka ce'u prami la alis} is one shared

> by everyone who loves Alice, the property {lo ka la djan prami ce'u}

> is shared by all those loved by John, two completely different

> properties, probably had by a different set of people.

>

I concede this to be true, even though, for example, in (1) it seems

counterintuitively odd that John should be the possessor of a property

that so intimately involves Alice. Indeed, John may not even appear

directly, such as "mi djuno lo du'u makau traji lo ka ce'u prami la

alis."

But I also contend that "lo ka la djan prami la alis kei cu traji"

to be a valid and meaningful utterance, even though we can't tell from

that sentence whether it's supralative from the POV of John, Alice,

the entire universe of lovers, etc."

>> If you are forceful in the property of hitting me, I am forceful in

>> the property of being hit by you. REGARDLESS of the fact that

>> I may have been hit by much harder forces, and to me, it's just

>> a light tap, in the property of being hit /by you/, it's forceful. YMMV

>

> I don't know what it means for someone to be forceful in a property.

> Are you thinking of "bapli"? But "bapli" is not about something being

> forceful in some property, it's about something forcing something

> else. I expect those two somethings to be events, not properties.

>

Actually, I didn't have any particular lojban word in mind when I

wrote that English sentence. But if I were to choose any, it would

have been tsali.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 21 of July, 2008 20:05 GMT posts: 350

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 7/17/08, lagejyspa wrote:

>>

>> > {gi'e punji lo xy. stizu ga'u loi ro nobli poi kansa xy.}: That's not

>> > the same as {punji lo xy stizu lo gapru be loi ro nobli poi kansa xy}

>>

>> Because (I'm guessing you would say) that the first is that the action

>> of placing is taking place above all the nobles, whereas the second

>> says that it is placed at the "above-the-nobles" place?

>

> Right.

Okay, I can live with your change

>

>> > {.sy. jungau la xaMAN. mu'i lo nu facki da'i lo du'u renvi kei le

>> > selsku be la mordeXAIS.}: "motivated by a would-be discovery

>> > of a survival"?

>> "...of the statement of Mordechai", yes.

>> ="to see if the words of Mordechai would hold up"

>

> I would say: "mu'i lo nu facki lo du'u xukau (da'i) renvi kei ..."

>

I didn't even know that "xukau" is a valid construction. But seeing

as it is, since kau is a UI, I don't mind making that change.

>

>> > {.ijebo fi li panoki'o tu'a lo bundrkikra fe lo ni rijno kei fa mi

>> > juntymre fi'o te dunda lo xance be lo gunka tezu'e lo nu muvgau by. le

>> > sorcu po'e lo nolraitru}:

>>

>> "by" should have been the silver, but now I'm not sure how to get

>> that in there, since rijno isn't a sumti anywhere, just a selbri...help!

>> (it goes without saying, of course, that I don't want to add "lo rijno"

>> instead of "by."

>

> I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the silver

> itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

> measured.

>

> But I don't think I understand what the sentence means. Is the silver

> given to the hands of the workers, or is it to be moved to the king's

> treasury?

>

It's being given to the workers so that THEY can move it into the

king's treasuries. (You think Haman would sully himself with such

menial labor?)

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 21 of July, 2008 20:10 GMT

On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > (1) la djan traji lo ka ce'u prami la alis

> > (2) la alis traji lo ka la djan prami ce'u

> >

> > (1) and (2) make quite different claims.

>

> I concede this to be true, even though, for example, in (1) it seems

> counterintuitively odd that John should be the possessor of a property

> that so intimately involves Alice.

I don't see anything odd there. It also intimately involves loving.

In fact, it's exactly the property anyone has when loving Alice.

> Indeed, John may not even appear

> directly, such as "mi djuno lo du'u makau traji lo ka ce'u prami la

> alis."

The point is that the x1 of traji is the one that holds the

property in x2 of traji. Of course we don't need to actually name

the x1. We can even say: "noda traji lo ka ce'u prami la alis",

perhaps because everyone loves her equally.

> But I also contend that "lo ka la djan prami la alis kei cu traji"

> to be a valid and meaningful utterance, even though we can't tell from

> that sentence whether it's supralative from the POV of John, Alice,

> the entire universe of lovers, etc."

We can say: "lo nu la djan prami la alis kei cu traji lo ka carmi"

"John's loving Alice is the most intense (of all events of loving)".

But what would it mean to say that the property is superlative?

Superlative in what property of properties?

> >> If you are forceful in the property of hitting me, I am forceful in

> >> the property of being hit by you. REGARDLESS of the fact that

> >> I may have been hit by much harder forces, and to me, it's just

> >> a light tap, in the property of being hit /by you/, it's forceful. YMMV

>

> Actually, I didn't have any particular lojban word in mind when I

> wrote that English sentence. But if I were to choose any, it would

> have been tsali.

I can understand "do tsali lo ka ce'u darxi mi", as hitting is something

that may require strength. I don't really understand "mi tsali lo ka do

darxi ce'u", unless it means that I'm somehow strong by resisting. In

any case, I wouldn't agree they say the same thing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 21 of July, 2008 20:11 GMT posts: 350

Forgot one question:

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

>> > {.ijebo fi li panoki'o tu'a lo bundrkikra fe lo ni rijno kei fa mi

>> > juntymre fi'o te dunda lo xance be lo gunka tezu'e lo nu muvgau by. le

>> > sorcu po'e lo nolraitru}:

>>

>> "by" should have been the silver, but now I'm not sure how to get

>> that in there, since rijno isn't a sumti anywhere, just a selbri...help!

>> (it goes without saying, of course, that I don't want to add "lo rijno"

>> instead of "by."

>

> I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the silver

> itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

> measured.

>

But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by

implication, juntymre) itself?

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 21 of July, 2008 20:17 GMT posts: 350

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM, komfo,amonan wrote:

>

> How about {lo rijno poi bundrkikra li pa no ki'o} ? The Hebrew (`asereth

> 'alaphim kikar keseph) looks, AFAICT, like a straightforward quantification.

It is: 10,000 kikars of silver (I will weigh, etc.) I just figured

that merli (and by implication, juntymerli) already built in it places

for the amount and scale, why not use them?

> I always reckon a type-3 fu'ivla should have the same place structure as its

> first component, although I think that's not codified; still, I think that

> formulation is clear. --

Certainly seems like a reasonable assumption to make. I would, as well.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 21 of July, 2008 20:28 GMT

On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> >

> > I would say: "mu'i lo nu facki lo du'u xukau (da'i) renvi kei ..."

>

> I didn't even know that "xukau" is a valid construction. But seeing

> as it is, since kau is a UI, I don't mind making that change.

Some people use "jei" instead of "du'u xukau", but I never liked

"jei" for that because of the way it's defined, and also there's no

reason for the "whether" indirect question to have a special

construction when other indirect questions don't. I haven't seen

"jei" used for a long time though.

"ni" can also be argued to be "nu/du'u/ka la'u makau" and "su'u",

in CLL's only example, to be something like "nu tai makau".

> It's being given to the workers so that THEY can move it into the

> king's treasuries. (You think Haman would sully himself with such

> menial labor?)

ua, I thought it was given to them as payment for doing the dirty job.

So where is the silver coming from?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 21 of July, 2008 20:30 GMT

On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

>

> > I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the silver

> > itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

> > measured.

>

> But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by

> implication, juntymre) itself?

Did you mean the x2? As I understand it:

"merli lo rijno": measure an amount of silver.

"merli lo ni rijno": measure the extent to which something is silver.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 22 of July, 2008 12:54 GMT posts: 350

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

>> >

>

> Some people use "jei" instead of "du'u xukau", but I never liked

> "jei" for that because of the way it's defined, and also there's no

> reason for the "whether" indirect question to have a special

> construction when other indirect questions don't. I haven't seen

> "jei" used for a long time though.

I've used it from time to time, and yeah, I could see how it would

work here, but I agree it's not the best construction for this use.

>> It's being given to the workers so that THEY can move it into the

>> king's treasuries. (You think Haman would sully himself with such

>> menial labor?)

>

> ua, I thought it was given to them as payment for doing the dirty job.

> So where is the silver coming from?

>

Haman's personal wealth (why do you think he got the vazir job in

the first place? His good looks?) He is weighing it out to give it

to the workers to put in the king's treasury, so that the king will

agree to his plan to get rid of the people.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 22 of July, 2008 12:56 GMT posts: 350

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

>>

>> > I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the silver

>> > itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

>> > measured.

>>

>> But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by

>> implication, juntymre) itself?

>

> Did you mean the x2? As I understand it:

I did mean X2, yes. I was concerened because the gi'uste says

"(amount)", which to me means "use ni here, jbopre". But if that's

not the case, I have no problem using just lo rijno.

>

> "merli lo rijno": measure an amount of silver.

> "merli lo ni rijno": measure the extent to which something is silver.

>

--gejyspa

Posted by adamgarrigus on Tue 22 of July, 2008 13:01 GMT posts: 92

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Michael Turniansky

wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jorge Llambías

> wrote:

> > On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías

> wrote:

> >>

> >> > I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the

> silver

> >> > itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

> >> > measured.

> >>

> >> But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by

> >> implication, juntymre) itself?

> >

> > Did you mean the x2? As I understand it:

>

> I did mean X2, yes. I was concerened because the gi'uste says

> "(amount)", which to me means "use ni here, jbopre". But if that's

> not the case, I have no problem using just lo rijno.

>

The definition of {rijno} covers you here.

rijno : x1 is made of/contains/**is a quantity of** silver

mu'o mi'e komfn

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 22 of July, 2008 15:02 GMT posts: 350

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM, komfo,amonan wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Michael Turniansky

> wrote:

>>

>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jorge Llambías

>> wrote:

>> > On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías

>> >> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the

>> >> > silver

>> >> > itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being

>> >> > measured.

>> >>

>> >> But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by

>> >> implication, juntymre) itself?

>> >

>> > Did you mean the x2? As I understand it:

>>

>> I did mean X2, yes. I was concerened because the gi'uste says

>> "(amount)", which to me means "use ni here, jbopre". But if that's

>> not the case, I have no problem using just lo rijno.

>

> The definition of {rijno} covers you here.

> rijno : x1 is made of/contains/*is a quantity of* silver

>

> mu'o mi'e komfn

>

Hey, cool!!! Okay.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 22 of July, 2008 18:37 GMT

Comments on chapter 4.

{.i my. klama ne'aca'u le vorme po le nolraitru}: I'd say "klama le vorme"

or "klama lo crane be le vorme" or "klama lo jibni be lo crane be lo vorme"

depending on how important the "ne'aca'u" is. Assuming that's where

he went. If he was just walking around in front of the gate, I think

"cadzu" might be better than "klama".

{.iki'ubo noda klama ne'i le vorme po le nolraitru}: similaly "klama

lo nenri be"

if it's "goes into".

{.i bu'u ro selje'a poi selklo lo nu lo selsku be le nolraitru be'o .e

le flalu be fu ny. cu klama ke'a kei}: Shouldn't this be "poi lo

selsku be ... cu klama ke'a", i.e. wthout "selklo"? "ro selje'a poi

selklo lo nu ..." says "every land where (the event) was confined to",

but if the event happened in more than one land, it was not confined

to any one of them.

{gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau

.e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

{tezu'e lo nu pikci ny. gi'e cpedu ca'u ny. vau lo natmi be .ebu}:

"tu'a lo natmi"?

{ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra

kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji

zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king

grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

{.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}:

"lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there.

{ko klama je jajgau ro bropre poi}: "lo(i) ro bropre", since it is not

the case that each of them will individually gather.

{.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think

it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to

what the law commands.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 23 of July, 2008 02:25 GMT posts: 350

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Comments on chapter 4.

>

> {.i my. klama ne'aca'u le vorme po le nolraitru}: I'd say "klama le vorme"

> or "klama lo crane be le vorme" or "klama lo jibni be lo crane be lo vorme"

> depending on how important the "ne'aca'u" is. Assuming that's where

> he went. If he was just walking around in front of the gate, I think

> "cadzu" might be better than "klama".

>

The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so

now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo

vorme..." might be the best?

> {.iki'ubo noda klama ne'i le vorme po le nolraitru}: similaly "klama

> lo nenri be" if it's "goes into".

>

I have no problem with that suggestion.

> {.i bu'u ro selje'a poi selklo lo nu lo selsku be le nolraitru be'o .e

> le flalu be fu ny. cu klama ke'a kei}: Shouldn't this be "poi lo

> selsku be ... cu klama ke'a", i.e. wthout "selklo"? "ro selje'a poi

> selklo lo nu ..." says "every land where (the event) was confined to",

> but if the event happened in more than one land, it was not confined

> to any one of them.

If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere

else, is it not confined to those countries? If I need to massage

the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that.

>

> {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau

> .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why

is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions

welcome

> {tezu'e lo nu pikci ny. gi'e cpedu ca'u ny. vau lo natmi be .ebu}:

> "tu'a lo natmi"?

No, that "vau" should have been "seva'u"

> {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra

> kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji

> zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king

> grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed,

except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. > > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the recent 30 day period"? > > {ko klama je jajgau ro bropre poi}: "lo(i) ro bropre", since it is not > the case that each of them will individually gather. Okay, no problem > > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to > what the law commands. > No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the same as "fau X"? --gejyspa > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 13:13 GMT

On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so

> now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo

> vorme..." might be the best?

Since "in front the gate" is the se klama, I would say "klama lo crane

be lo vorme". Saying that the front of the gate is the limit of his going,

rather than his destination, seems more open. If he just passed by the

gate going somewhere else, the gate might still constitute a limit.

> If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere

> else, is it not confined to those countries?

Yes, to all three together, but not to each of them.

> If I need to massage

> the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that.

"lo(i) ro selje'a" would work.

> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau

> > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

>

> Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why

> is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions

> welcome

I use "la'e di'u" in such cases. "ti", "ta", "tu" are not meant to point to

things said but to things in the world. I'm sometimes tempted to start

using "tei" and "tau" for that use of "this" and "that" because "la'e di'u"

is so clumsy, but you probably wouldn't like that. :-)

> > {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra

> > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji

> > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king

> > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

>

> This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed,

> except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" > Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. "Except" is hard. Perhaps a new sentence: ".i ku'i da poi le nolraitru cu jgari le nolga'a fa'a ke'a cu za'o jmive". > > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: > > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. > > Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is > not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the > recent 30 day period"? But then perhaps she was being summoned during the recent 20 day period, even if not for the full 30 day one? I think the time period should be outside the scope of the negation. > > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think > > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to > > what the law commands. > > No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the > same as "fau X"? They are probably close. I was more concerned about the rest. In particular, I don't think this law is the kind of rules/logic that determines what counts as a contradiction. mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 23 of July, 2008 14:25 GMT posts: 350

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>> The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so

>> now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo

>> vorme..." might be the best?

>

> Since "in front the gate" is the se klama, I would say "klama lo crane

> be lo vorme". Saying that the front of the gate is the limit of his going,

> rather than his destination, seems more open. If he just passed by the

> gate going somewhere else, the gate might still constitute a limit.

>

Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit

(the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)". So while it's

true his final destination was the front of the gate, it adds an air

of stopping there, being unable to go further. I'm not sure this

flavor is conveyable in the lojban). I don't think "klama lo crane be

lo ji'e vorme" works, does it? Doesn't that mean something on the

order of "goes to the front of a limited (by something) door"?

>> If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere

>> else, is it not confined to those countries?

>

> Yes, to all three together, but not to each of them.

>

>> If I need to massage

>> the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that.

>

> "lo(i) ro selje'a" would work.

>

Will do.

>> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau

>> > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

>>

>> Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why

>> is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions

>> welcome

>

> I use "la'e di'u" in such cases. "ti", "ta", "tu" are not meant to point to

> things said but to things in the world. I'm sometimes tempted to start

> using "tei" and "tau" for that use of "this" and "that" because "la'e di'u"

> is so clumsy, but you probably wouldn't like that. :-)

I had initially considered that, but wasn't sure if it worked in this

case. If it was a direct quote by the queen, I could see it, but

outside a quote, it would refer to, well, I'm not sure, because was

the referent directly referenced? I'm almost more willing to say it

should be something like ...lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau cei broda .e lo

du'u makau mukti lo nu broda"

>

>> > {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra

>> > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji

>> > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king

>> > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

>>

>> This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed,

>> except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" >> Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. > > "Except" is hard. Perhaps a new sentence: ".i ku'i da poi > le nolraitru cu jgari le nolga'a fa'a ke'a cu za'o jmive". I'll do this: ".iku'i makau poi fa'a ke'a jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji cu za'o jmive" > >> > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: >> > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. >> >> Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is >> not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the >> recent 30 day period"? > > But then perhaps she was being summoned during the recent > 20 day period, even if not for the full 30 day one? I think the time > period should be outside the scope of the negation. > Okay, I'll change it. Actually, I think the problem may have been more with "ca'o" needing to be "ca". I guess "ca'o" does imply "during the entire period" whereas "ca" doesn't, so that if I had used "na....ca", it would mean "never during" >> > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think >> > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to >> > what the law commands. >> >> No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the >> same as "fau X"? > > They are probably close. I was more concerned about the rest. > In particular, I don't think this law is the kind of rules/logic that > determines what counts as a contradiction. Ah, I didn't notice that part of your suggestion. Hmm.. it certainly has merit. Part of my prior word choice had to do with the parts of natfe. X1 and X2 are du'u, This fact contradicts that fact under rule system X3. So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu. Or, in English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land. So taking by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u) is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe. --gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 15:00 GMT

Hi folks

How can I get off this mailing list.

John

--- Original Message ---

From: "Michael Turniansky"

To:

Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:24 PM

Subject: WikiDiscuss Re: Esther

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jorge Llambías

> wrote:

>> On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>>> The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so

>>> now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo

>>> vorme..." might be the best?

>>

>> Since "in front the gate" is the se klama, I would say "klama lo crane

>> be lo vorme". Saying that the front of the gate is the limit of his

>> going,

>> rather than his destination, seems more open. If he just passed by the

>> gate going somewhere else, the gate might still constitute a limit.

>>

>

> Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit

> (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)". So while it's

> true his final destination was the front of the gate, it adds an air

> of stopping there, being unable to go further. I'm not sure this

> flavor is conveyable in the lojban). I don't think "klama lo crane be

> lo ji'e vorme" works, does it? Doesn't that mean something on the

> order of "goes to the front of a limited (by something) door"?

>

>>> If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere

>>> else, is it not confined to those countries?

>>

>> Yes, to all three together, but not to each of them.

>>

>>> If I need to massage

>>> the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that.

>>

>> "lo(i) ro selje'a" would work.

>>

>

> Will do.

>

>>> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau

>>> > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

>>>

>>> Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why

>>> is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions

>>> welcome

>>

>> I use "la'e di'u" in such cases. "ti", "ta", "tu" are not meant to point

>> to

>> things said but to things in the world. I'm sometimes tempted to start

>> using "tei" and "tau" for that use of "this" and "that" because "la'e

>> di'u"

>> is so clumsy, but you probably wouldn't like that. :-)

>

> I had initially considered that, but wasn't sure if it worked in this

> case. If it was a direct quote by the queen, I could see it, but

> outside a quote, it would refer to, well, I'm not sure, because was

> the referent directly referenced? I'm almost more willing to say it

> should be something like ...lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau cei broda .e lo

> du'u makau mukti lo nu broda"

>

>>

>>> > {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra

>>> > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji

>>> > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king

>>> > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

>>>

>>> This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed,

>>> except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" >>> Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. >> >> "Except" is hard. Perhaps a new sentence: ".i ku'i da poi >> le nolraitru cu jgari le nolga'a fa'a ke'a cu za'o jmive". > > I'll do this: ".iku'i makau poi fa'a ke'a jgari fa le nolraitru le > nolga'a be loi solji cu za'o jmive" > >> >>> > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: >>> > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. >>> >>> Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is >>> not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the >>> recent 30 day period"? >> >> But then perhaps she was being summoned during the recent >> 20 day period, even if not for the full 30 day one? I think the time >> period should be outside the scope of the negation. >> > > Okay, I'll change it. Actually, I think the problem may have been > more with "ca'o" needing to be "ca". I guess "ca'o" does imply > "during the entire period" whereas "ca" doesn't, so that if I had used > "na....ca", it would mean "never during" > >>> > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think >>> > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to >>> > what the law commands. >>> >>> No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the >>> same as "fau X"? >> >> They are probably close. I was more concerned about the rest. >> In particular, I don't think this law is the kind of rules/logic that >> determines what counts as a contradiction. > > Ah, I didn't notice that part of your suggestion. Hmm.. it > certainly has merit. Part of my prior word choice had to do with the > parts of natfe. X1 and X2 are du'u, This fact contradicts that fact > under rule system X3. So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu > natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu. Or, in > English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is > allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land. So taking > by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a > logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the > fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se > flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u) > is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe. > > > --gejyspa > > > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 15:21 GMT

On 7/23/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>

> Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit

> (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)".

Like Spanish "hasta". I use {fe'e co'u} for the spatial counterpart

of "until", but then you don't use {co'u} for "until", so that might

not work for you.

In general, I find Lojban's spatial tenses quite messy, especially

when in combination with selbri that themselves involve spatial

relations, like {klama}.

> So while it's

> true his final destination was the front of the gate, it adds an air

> of stopping there, being unable to go further. I'm not sure this

> flavor is conveyable in the lojban). I don't think "klama lo crane be

> lo ji'e vorme" works, does it? Doesn't that mean something on the

> order of "goes to the front of a limited (by something) door"?

Right, I don't think that works. I suppose you could say something

like {klama lo crane be lo vorme be'o .enai lo bancu}, but that

may be too wordy.

> >> > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}:

> >> > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there.

>

> Actually, I think the problem may have been

> more with "ca'o" needing to be "ca". I guess "ca'o" does imply

> "during the entire period" whereas "ca" doesn't, so that if I had used

> "na....ca", it would mean "never during"

Yes, {na ... ca} works for me.

> So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu

> natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu.

But {le du'u mi klama} and {le du'u noda ka'e klama} are contradictory

by the rules of ordinary logic, not by any law dictated be the king.

> Or, in

> English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is

> allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land.

The rule says who is allowed to go, not what contradicts what.

If the law said that everyone was allowed to go, your going would

still contradict nobody being able to go.

> So taking

> by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a

> logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the

> fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se

> flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u)

> is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe.

I agree there is a logical contradiction, but not that the contradiction

derives from any non-logical law.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 23 of July, 2008 17:32 GMT posts: 350

Jim I'd love to help you, but I'm not sure how one gets off this llist

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 7/23/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

>>

>> Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit

>> (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)".

>

> Right, I don't think that works. I suppose you could say something

> like {klama lo crane be lo vorme be'o .enai lo bancu}, but that

> may be too wordy.

Okay, I'll take one more stab add it, adding a word to my last construction:

klama ji'eku lo crane be lo vorme

It keeps lo crane as the destination, and adds an exisitng, but

unspecified limit.

>

>> So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu

>> natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu.

>

> But {le du'u mi klama} and {le du'u noda ka'e klama} are contradictory

> by the rules of ordinary logic, not by any law dictated be the king.

>

>> Or, in

>> English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is

>> allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land.

>

> The rule says who is allowed to go, not what contradicts what.

> If the law said that everyone was allowed to go, your going would

> still contradict nobody being able to go.

>

>> So taking

>> by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a

>> logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the

>> fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se

>> flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u)

>> is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe.

>

> I agree there is a logical contradiction, but not that the contradiction

> derives from any non-logical law.

>

Okay, that's true, but on the other hand, I gave you a se natfe as

my example, but not in my original text. If the implied se natfe was

"lo du'u noda kakne lo nu natfe lo se flalu" then it only works under

the system of the laws. "I will go" doesn't contradict "nothing can

break a law" unless "no one can go" is one of the rules. Where is it

on of the rules? In the rule set know as "the Law". Basically, what

I'm trying to say (although ultimately, there isn't much semantic

difference) isn't "I will go, despite the fact that there is a

specific law against it", but "I will go, despite the fact that I will

be contravening the laws of the land (the specific details left

unstated)".

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 17:42 GMT

On 7/23/08, John O'Donoghue wrote:

> Hi folks

>

> How can I get off this mailing list.

I think you have to do it through here:

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi/

(or ask the moderator, who may not be paying attention these days.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 22:26 GMT

{la .esTER dasni fi lo ka noltruni'u}: As I understand {dasni}, x3 is

a property that x2 has or appears to have. For example: "ko'a dasni lo

tansi lo ka mapku", "she wears a pan as a hat". It does not mean that

x1 is dressed so as to display or appear to have property x3.

{.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"?

{lo xance po'e ny.}: "be ny"?

{.i .e'a ji'e fi'ure le se nolraitru ra ba se dunda fi do}: Maybe

"ji'e tu'a .." since the limit to the giving would be giving half the

kingdom, rather than the half of the kingdom itself.

{ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the

very next day?

{loi ka fengu la mordeXAIS. la xaMAN. fanta tu'a xy.}: I think

something went wrong here. A missing {.i}?

{da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this.

{.i la'edi'u lino vamji mi}: {.i noda prali mi la'edi'u}?

{gi'e klama fi'ose kansa le nolraitru balsai}: {le balsai}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 24 of July, 2008 18:14 GMT posts: 350

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> {la .esTER dasni fi lo ka noltruni'u}: As I understand {dasni}, x3 is

> a property that x2 has or appears to have. For example: "ko'a dasni lo

> tansi lo ka mapku", "she wears a pan as a hat". It does not mean that

> x1 is dressed so as to display or appear to have property x3.

>

That's true. And that's exactly how the Hebrew has it: "Esther

dressed in royalty...."

> {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"?

I assume you are asking "fa abu" instead of "ma'i abu"? It's hard to

say. The Hebrew idiom is "She gained favor in his eyes", so I felt

that "in his eyes" was more like defining a reference frame rather

than directly approving her.

> {lo xance po'e ny.}: "be ny"?

Yes, thanks.

>

> {.i .e'a ji'e fi'ure le se nolraitru ra ba se dunda fi do}: Maybe

> "ji'e tu'a .." since the limit to the giving would be giving half the

> kingdom, rather than the half of the kingdom itself.

I don't think it needs it. The whole point of modals is to give an

extra place to the selbri that don't normally have it. There are a

few gismu out there that already have a "limit" place, such as bancu

and jbini. Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1

gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to

be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and

jbini.

> {ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the

> very next day?

Actually, it was the very same day. I think I was getting my points

of reference confused, thinking that the "zu" was measured from now.

What's the best way to say "Haman went out that day...."? "ca detri

be lo nu go'i"?

>

> {loi ka fengu la mordeXAIS. la xaMAN. fanta tu'a xy.}: I think

> something went wrong here. A missing {.i}?

Yes, exactly. It should have been .i la xaMAN fanta... etc. Thanks

>

> {da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this.

>

Do you mean like "i cusku fa la xaMAN. lu ji'a naku klagau fa la

.esTER. po'u le noltruni'u na'ebo mi jo'u le nolraitru le balsai poi

.ebu zbasu .iji'a ca lo bavlamdei mi se klacpe .ebu fi'o se kansa le

nolraitru"?

(I'm not sure if I have the syntax right, I don't usually use na'ebo.

Also, doesn't this sentence (as well as my old one) display the usual

na-scope problems, in that maybe just someone other than the king was

invited?)

> {.i la'edi'u lino vamji mi}: {.i noda prali mi la'edi'u}?

>

Okay, "la'e di'u na'e te prali mi" actually hews closer to the Hebrew.

> {gi'e klama fi'ose kansa le nolraitru balsai}: {le balsai}?

Indeed. Thanks.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 24 of July, 2008 19:06 GMT

On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > {la .esTER dasni fi lo ka noltruni'u}: As I understand {dasni}, x3 is

> > a property that x2 has or appears to have. For example: "ko'a dasni lo

> > tansi lo ka mapku", "she wears a pan as a hat". It does not mean that

> > x1 is dressed so as to display or appear to have property x3.

>

> That's true. And that's exactly how the Hebrew has it: "Esther

> dressed in royalty...."

Oh. That metaphor then might end up extending the meaning of

"dasni" to cover both "x1 wears x2 as x3" and "x1 dresses as x3".

> > {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"?

>

> I assume you are asking "fa abu" instead of "ma'i abu"? It's hard to

> say. The Hebrew idiom is "She gained favor in his eyes", so I felt

> that "in his eyes" was more like defining a reference frame rather

> than directly approving her.

There's the issue of the implicit "ce'u". The default reading would be

{.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka (ce'u) zanru ma'i .abu}: "She got to be an

approver in his reference frame". You could fix that by changing

it to "se zanru", but I really don't see that "ma'i .abu" is better

than "fa .abu" for "in his eyes".

> Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1

> gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to

> be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and

> jbini.

Well, we knew already that we disagree about how BAIs add places. :-)

> > {ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the

> > very next day?

>

> Actually, it was the very same day. I think I was getting my points

> of reference confused, thinking that the "zu" was measured from now.

> What's the best way to say "Haman went out that day...."? "ca detri

> be lo nu go'i"?

The problem is that both conventions are available, speaker centered

or story centered. I don't think the speaker is really very "present" here,

so I didn't even consider that possibility. "le ca djedi" would be

"the then day", just as you used "le bavlamdei" for the following day in the

story and not the speaker's following day.

> > {da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this.

>

> Do you mean like "i cusku fa la xaMAN. lu ji'a naku klagau fa la

> .esTER. po'u le noltruni'u na'ebo mi jo'u le nolraitru le balsai poi

> .ebu zbasu .iji'a ca lo bavlamdei mi se klacpe .ebu fi'o se kansa le

> nolraitru"?

>

> (I'm not sure if I have the syntax right, I don't usually use na'ebo.

"na'ebo" behaves exactly like "la'e", so it's "na'ebo (mi jo'u le nolraitru)",

"someone other than me and the king".

> Also, doesn't this sentence (as well as my old one) display the usual

> na-scope problems, in that maybe just someone other than the king was

> invited?)

"naku" there denies that anyone other than me and the king were invited.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 24 of July, 2008 19:26 GMT posts: 350

>> > {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"?

>>

>> I assume you are asking "fa abu" instead of "ma'i abu"? It's hard to

>> say. The Hebrew idiom is "She gained favor in his eyes", so I felt

>> that "in his eyes" was more like defining a reference frame rather

>> than directly approving her.

>

> There's the issue of the implicit "ce'u". The default reading would be

> {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka (ce'u) zanru ma'i .abu}: "She got to be an

> approver in his reference frame". You could fix that by changing

> it to "se zanru", but I really don't see that "ma'i .abu" is better

> than "fa .abu" for "in his eyes".

>

I thought about it some more, and decided to go with your "fa abu"

>

>> > {ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the

>> > very next day?

>>

>> Actually, it was the very same day. I think I was getting my points

>> of reference confused, thinking that the "zu" was measured from now.

>> What's the best way to say "Haman went out that day...."? "ca detri

>> be lo nu go'i"?

>

> The problem is that both conventions are available, speaker centered

> or story centered. I don't think the speaker is really very "present" here,

> so I didn't even consider that possibility. "le ca djedi" would be

> "the then day", just as you used "le bavlamdei" for the following day in the

> story and not the speaker's following day.

Okay, "ca le ca djedi" it is

>

>> > {da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this.

>>

>> Do you mean like "i cusku fa la xaMAN. lu ji'a naku klagau fa la

>> .esTER. po'u le noltruni'u na'ebo mi jo'u le nolraitru le balsai poi

>> .ebu zbasu .iji'a ca lo bavlamdei mi se klacpe .ebu fi'o se kansa le

>> nolraitru"?

>>

>> (I'm not sure if I have the syntax right, I don't usually use na'ebo.

>

> "na'ebo" behaves exactly like "la'e", so it's "na'ebo (mi jo'u le nolraitru)",

> "someone other than me and the king".

>

>> Also, doesn't this sentence (as well as my old one) display the usual

>> na-scope problems, in that maybe just someone other than the king was

>> invited?)

>

> "naku" there denies that anyone other than me and the king were invited.

Okay, na'ebo it is.

Hey, you win 3 for 3!  :-)

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 24 of July, 2008 19:44 GMT

On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> >Okay, I'll take one more stab add it, adding a word to my last construction:

> >klama ji'eku lo crane be lo vorme

>

> (nor, for that matter, my last explanation of the "natfe" sentence)

>

> Didn't want to make any changes in the former without your okay

(It seems something got lost there.)

I can't really add much about those. To me ji'eku does not indicate

that the going went so far and no further. It may hint at that, but nothing

like English "up to". And a law as the logic for what counts as a

contradiction also doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps someone

else wants to chime in?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of July, 2008 12:45 GMT

Some more thoughts about this:

On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1

> gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to

> be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and

> jbini.

Let's consider these English sentences:

He will give up to half the kingdom to the queen.

He will give presents to up to half the kingdom.

Up to half the kingdom will give presents to the queen.

In English, "up to half the kingdom" can be subject,

direct object or indirect object, and its role is clearly

shown by its position in the sentence. In Lojban "ji'e

lo xadba be lo se nolraitru" cannot be any of x1, x2

or x3. In your example Xji'e is a limit to x2, but will this

be so in general for any ji'e tag used with dunda, or

only as determined by this context?

I suppose it is always be possible to disambiguate by

adding a "seji'e lo dunda", "seji'e lo se dunda", "seji'e

lo te dunda", or "teji'e lo ka dunda fa/fe/fi ce'u", and that

this can be omitted when context makes it unnecessary.

So ok, I will admit "ji'e" is usable here, even though its

structure is quite different from the structure of English

"up to" (and I assume also the corresponding Hebrew).

In fact "up to" works pretty much like "po'o" and "ji'a",

marking instead of the only case or an additional case,

the most extreme possible case. It's very similar to

"at most". I use "do'a" and "do'anai" for "at most" and

"at least", even though "do'a" is not officially classified

in the po'o/ji'a group.

And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier

instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could

avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by PierreAbbat on Fri 25 of July, 2008 12:58 GMT posts: 324

On Friday 25 July 2008 08:45:25 Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Some more thoughts about this:

>

> On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> > Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1

> > gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to

> > be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and

> > jbini.

>

> Let's consider these English sentences:

>

> He will give up to half the kingdom to the queen.

> He will give presents to up to half the kingdom.

> Up to half the kingdom will give presents to the queen.

>

> In English, "up to half the kingdom" can be subject,

> direct object or indirect object, and its role is clearly

> shown by its position in the sentence. In Lojban "ji'e

> lo xadba be lo se nolraitru" cannot be any of x1, x2

> or x3. In your example Xji'e is a limit to x2, but will this

> be so in general for any ji'e tag used with dunda, or

> only as determined by this context?

>

> I suppose it is always be possible to disambiguate by

> adding a "seji'e lo dunda", "seji'e lo se dunda", "seji'e

> lo te dunda", or "teji'e lo ka dunda fa/fe/fi ce'u", and that

> this can be omitted when context makes it unnecessary.

> So ok, I will admit "ji'e" is usable here, even though its

> structure is quite different from the structure of English

> "up to" (and I assume also the corresponding Hebrew).

How about attaching "ji'e lo xadba" to the sumti with "pe"?

Pierre

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:02 GMT posts: 350

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Some more thoughts about this:

>

> And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier

> instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could

> avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru".

>

>

Actually, that's a perfect solution.

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:09 GMT

On 7/25/08, Pierre Abbat wrote:

>

> How about attaching "ji'e lo xadba" to the sumti with "pe"?

In this case there was no actual sumti in x2, but I suppose

"da pe ji'e lo xadba" would also do, or (better I think)

"da poi se jimte lo xadba".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit Delete Report this post

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:16 GMT posts: 350

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Michael Turniansky

wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

>> Some more thoughts about this:

>>

>> And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier

>> instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could

>> avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru".

>>

>>

> Actually, that's a perfect solution.

>

> --gejyspa

Actually, I changed my mind... It's not as good a solution. The

context got lost in yoour excerpt. The point was that "ra "(lo se

cpedu) was the se dunda, and it is that that should be limited.

---gy

Posted by adamgarrigus on Tue 22 of July, 2008 13:01 GMT posts: 92 On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías > wrote: > >> > >> > I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the > silver > >> > itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being > >> > measured. > >> > >> But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by > >> implication, juntymre) itself? > > > > Did you mean the x2? As I understand it: > > I did mean X2, yes. I was concerened because the gi'uste says > "(amount)", which to me means "use ni here, jbopre". But if that's > not the case, I have no problem using just lo rijno. >

The definition of {rijno} covers you here. rijno : x1 is made of/contains/**is a quantity of** silver

mu'o mi'e komfn

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 22 of July, 2008 15:02 GMT posts: 350 On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM, komfo,amonan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jorge Llambías >> wrote: >> > On 7/21/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Jorge Llambías >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I would say "lo rijno" instead of "lo ni rijno" because it is the >> >> > silver >> >> > itself, not the extent to which something is silver that is being >> >> > measured. >> >> >> >> But isn't that contradicted by the X3 place of merli (and hence, by >> >> implication, juntymre) itself? >> > >> > Did you mean the x2? As I understand it: >> >> I did mean X2, yes. I was concerened because the gi'uste says >> "(amount)", which to me means "use ni here, jbopre". But if that's >> not the case, I have no problem using just lo rijno. > > The definition of {rijno} covers you here. > rijno : x1 is made of/contains/*is a quantity of* silver > > mu'o mi'e komfn >


Hey, cool!!! Okay.


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 22 of July, 2008 18:37 GMT Comments on chapter 4.

{.i my. klama ne'aca'u le vorme po le nolraitru}: I'd say "klama le vorme" or "klama lo crane be le vorme" or "klama lo jibni be lo crane be lo vorme" depending on how important the "ne'aca'u" is. Assuming that's where he went. If he was just walking around in front of the gate, I think "cadzu" might be better than "klama".

{.iki'ubo noda klama ne'i le vorme po le nolraitru}: similaly "klama lo nenri be" if it's "goes into".

{.i bu'u ro selje'a poi selklo lo nu lo selsku be le nolraitru be'o .e le flalu be fu ny. cu klama ke'a kei}: Shouldn't this be "poi lo selsku be ... cu klama ke'a", i.e. wthout "selklo"? "ro selje'a poi selklo lo nu ..." says "every land where (the event) was confined to", but if the event happened in more than one land, it was not confined to any one of them.

{gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

{tezu'e lo nu pikci ny. gi'e cpedu ca'u ny. vau lo natmi be .ebu}: "tu'a lo natmi"?

{ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

{.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there.

{ko klama je jajgau ro bropre poi}: "lo(i) ro bropre", since it is not the case that each of them will individually gather.

{.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to what the law commands.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 23 of July, 2008 02:25 GMT posts: 350 On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > Comments on chapter 4. > > {.i my. klama ne'aca'u le vorme po le nolraitru}: I'd say "klama le vorme" > or "klama lo crane be le vorme" or "klama lo jibni be lo crane be lo vorme" > depending on how important the "ne'aca'u" is. Assuming that's where > he went. If he was just walking around in front of the gate, I think > "cadzu" might be better than "klama". >

The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo vorme..." might be the best?

> {.iki'ubo noda klama ne'i le vorme po le nolraitru}: similaly "klama > lo nenri be" if it's "goes into". > I have no problem with that suggestion.

> {.i bu'u ro selje'a poi selklo lo nu lo selsku be le nolraitru be'o .e > le flalu be fu ny. cu klama ke'a kei}: Shouldn't this be "poi lo > selsku be ... cu klama ke'a", i.e. wthout "selklo"? "ro selje'a poi > selklo lo nu ..." says "every land where (the event) was confined to", > but if the event happened in more than one land, it was not confined > to any one of them.

If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere else, is it not confined to those countries? If I need to massage the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that.

> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here?

Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions welcome

> {tezu'e lo nu pikci ny. gi'e cpedu ca'u ny. vau lo natmi be .ebu}: > "tu'a lo natmi"?

No, that "vau" should have been "seva'u"

> {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"?

This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed, except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. > > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the recent 30 day period"? > > {ko klama je jajgau ro bropre poi}: "lo(i) ro bropre", since it is not > the case that each of them will individually gather. Okay, no problem > > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to > what the law commands. > No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the same as "fau X"? --gejyspa > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 13:13 GMT On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so > now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo > vorme..." might be the best?

Since "in front the gate" is the se klama, I would say "klama lo crane be lo vorme". Saying that the front of the gate is the limit of his going, rather than his destination, seems more open. If he just passed by the gate going somewhere else, the gate might still constitute a limit.

> If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere > else, is it not confined to those countries?

Yes, to all three together, but not to each of them.

> If I need to massage > the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that.

"lo(i) ro selje'a" would work.

> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau > > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here? > > Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why > is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions > welcome

I use "la'e di'u" in such cases. "ti", "ta", "tu" are not meant to point to things said but to things in the world. I'm sometimes tempted to start using "tei" and "tau" for that use of "this" and "that" because "la'e di'u" is so clumsy, but you probably wouldn't like that. :-)

> > {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra > > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji > > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king > > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"? > > This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed, > except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" > Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. "Except" is hard. Perhaps a new sentence: ".i ku'i da poi le nolraitru cu jgari le nolga'a fa'a ke'a cu za'o jmive". > > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: > > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. > > Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is > not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the > recent 30 day period"? But then perhaps she was being summoned during the recent 20 day period, even if not for the full 30 day one? I think the time period should be outside the scope of the negation. > > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think > > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to > > what the law commands. > > No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the > same as "fau X"? They are probably close. I was more concerned about the rest. In particular, I don't think this law is the kind of rules/logic that determines what counts as a contradiction. mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 23 of July, 2008 14:25 GMT posts: 350 On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so >> now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo >> vorme..." might be the best? > > Since "in front the gate" is the se klama, I would say "klama lo crane > be lo vorme". Saying that the front of the gate is the limit of his going, > rather than his destination, seems more open. If he just passed by the > gate going somewhere else, the gate might still constitute a limit. >

Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)". So while it's true his final destination was the front of the gate, it adds an air of stopping there, being unable to go further. I'm not sure this flavor is conveyable in the lojban). I don't think "klama lo crane be lo ji'e vorme" works, does it? Doesn't that mean something on the order of "goes to the front of a limited (by something) door"?

>> If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere >> else, is it not confined to those countries? > > Yes, to all three together, but not to each of them. > >> If I need to massage >> the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that. > > "lo(i) ro selje'a" would work. >

Will do.

>> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau >> > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here? >> >> Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why >> is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions >> welcome > > I use "la'e di'u" in such cases. "ti", "ta", "tu" are not meant to point to > things said but to things in the world. I'm sometimes tempted to start > using "tei" and "tau" for that use of "this" and "that" because "la'e di'u" > is so clumsy, but you probably wouldn't like that. :-)

I had initially considered that, but wasn't sure if it worked in this case. If it was a direct quote by the queen, I could see it, but outside a quote, it would refer to, well, I'm not sure, because was the referent directly referenced? I'm almost more willing to say it should be something like ...lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau cei broda .e lo du'u makau mukti lo nu broda"

> >> > {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra >> > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji >> > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king >> > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"? >> >> This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed, >> except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" >> Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. > > "Except" is hard. Perhaps a new sentence: ".i ku'i da poi > le nolraitru cu jgari le nolga'a fa'a ke'a cu za'o jmive". I'll do this: ".iku'i makau poi fa'a ke'a jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji cu za'o jmive" > >> > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: >> > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. >> >> Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is >> not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the >> recent 30 day period"? > > But then perhaps she was being summoned during the recent > 20 day period, even if not for the full 30 day one? I think the time > period should be outside the scope of the negation. > Okay, I'll change it. Actually, I think the problem may have been more with "ca'o" needing to be "ca". I guess "ca'o" does imply "during the entire period" whereas "ca" doesn't, so that if I had used "na....ca", it would mean "never during" >> > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think >> > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to >> > what the law commands. >> >> No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the >> same as "fau X"? > > They are probably close. I was more concerned about the rest. > In particular, I don't think this law is the kind of rules/logic that > determines what counts as a contradiction. Ah, I didn't notice that part of your suggestion. Hmm.. it certainly has merit. Part of my prior word choice had to do with the parts of natfe. X1 and X2 are du'u, This fact contradicts that fact under rule system X3. So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu. Or, in English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land. So taking by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u) is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe. --gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 15:00 GMT Hi folks

How can I get off this mailing list.

John --- Original Message --- From: "Michael Turniansky" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: WikiDiscuss Re: Esther


> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jorge Llambías > wrote: >> On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >>> The Hebrew says that he went "up to in front of the king's gate", so >>> now I'm beginning to think that maybe "klama ji'e lo crane be lo >>> vorme..." might be the best? >> >> Since "in front the gate" is the se klama, I would say "klama lo crane >> be lo vorme". Saying that the front of the gate is the limit of his >> going, >> rather than his destination, seems more open. If he just passed by the >> gate going somewhere else, the gate might still constitute a limit. >> > > Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit > (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)". So while it's > true his final destination was the front of the gate, it adds an air > of stopping there, being unable to go further. I'm not sure this > flavor is conveyable in the lojban). I don't think "klama lo crane be > lo ji'e vorme" works, does it? Doesn't that mean something on the > order of "goes to the front of a limited (by something) door"? > >>> If a plague happens in Canada, Argentina, and England, but nowhere >>> else, is it not confined to those countries? >> >> Yes, to all three together, but not to each of them. >> >>> If I need to massage >>> the gadri (ro loi selje'a?), I can do that. >> >> "lo(i) ro selje'a" would work. >> > > Will do. > >>> > {gi'e minde ko'a tu'a la mordeXAIS. tezu'e lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau >>> > .e lo du'u makau mukti ta}: what's ta here? >>> >>> Mordechai's action. The Hebrew is "...to know what is this, and why >>> is this?" I admit I had a bit of trouble with this one. Suggestions >>> welcome >> >> I use "la'e di'u" in such cases. "ti", "ta", "tu" are not meant to point >> to >> things said but to things in the world. I'm sometimes tempted to start >> using "tei" and "tau" for that use of "this" and "that" because "la'e >> di'u" >> is so clumsy, but you probably wouldn't like that. :-) > > I had initially considered that, but wasn't sure if it worked in this > case. If it was a direct quote by the queen, I could see it, but > outside a quote, it would refer to, well, I'm not sure, because was > the referent directly referenced? I'm almost more willing to say it > should be something like ...lo nu djuno lo du'u mokau cei broda .e lo > du'u makau mukti lo nu broda" > >> >>> > {ro nanmu .ja ninmu poi .. cu terfla fi lo pamei fe lo nu se catra >>> > kei secau da poi fa'a da jgari fa le nolraitru le nolga'a be loi solji >>> > zi'e noi ca'o jmive}: "without something such that towards it the king >>> > grasps the scepter of gold, and which is alive"? >>> >>> This is kind of a garble. Here's what it should read "...is killed, >>> except that who the king holds the scepter twoards, continues to live" >>> Probably at least a da-->dakau change is called for here. >> >> "Except" is hard. Perhaps a new sentence: ".i ku'i da poi >> le nolraitru cu jgari le nolga'a fa'a ke'a cu za'o jmive". > > I'll do this: ".iku'i makau poi fa'a ke'a jgari fa le nolraitru le > nolga'a be loi solji cu za'o jmive" > >> >>> > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: >>> > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. >>> >>> Yes, I need to change vi-> zi. I think na can stay though. "It is >>> not true that I have been requested to come to the king during the >>> recent 30 day period"? >> >> But then perhaps she was being summoned during the recent >> 20 day period, even if not for the full 30 day one? I think the time >> period should be outside the scope of the negation. >> > > Okay, I'll change it. Actually, I think the problem may have been > more with "ca'o" needing to be "ca". I guess "ca'o" does imply > "during the entire period" whereas "ca" doesn't, so that if I had used > "na....ca", it would mean "never during" > >>> > {.i taiku mi klama le nolraitru va'o lo nu natfe fi le flalu}: I think >>> > it would be "fau lo natfe be le se flalu", i.e. in contradiction to >>> > what the law commands. >>> >>> No particular objeciton, but isn't "va'o lo nu X" essentially the >>> same as "fau X"? >> >> They are probably close. I was more concerned about the rest. >> In particular, I don't think this law is the kind of rules/logic that >> determines what counts as a contradiction. > > Ah, I didn't notice that part of your suggestion. Hmm.. it > certainly has merit. Part of my prior word choice had to do with the > parts of natfe. X1 and X2 are du'u, This fact contradicts that fact > under rule system X3. So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu > natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu. Or, in > English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is > allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land. So taking > by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a > logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the > fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se > flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u) > is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe. > > > --gejyspa > > > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 15:21 GMT On 7/23/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit > (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)".

Like Spanish "hasta". I use {fe'e co'u} for the spatial counterpart of "until", but then you don't use {co'u} for "until", so that might not work for you.

In general, I find Lojban's spatial tenses quite messy, especially when in combination with selbri that themselves involve spatial relations, like {klama}.

> So while it's > true his final destination was the front of the gate, it adds an air > of stopping there, being unable to go further. I'm not sure this > flavor is conveyable in the lojban). I don't think "klama lo crane be > lo ji'e vorme" works, does it? Doesn't that mean something on the > order of "goes to the front of a limited (by something) door"?

Right, I don't think that works. I suppose you could say something like {klama lo crane be lo vorme be'o .enai lo bancu}, but that may be too wordy.

> >> > {.i ku'i mi na se klacpe fi le nolraitru ca'o lo vi djedi be li cino}: > >> > "lo zi djedi"? Also, I think you want "na'e" there. > > Actually, I think the problem may have been > more with "ca'o" needing to be "ca". I guess "ca'o" does imply > "during the entire period" whereas "ca" doesn't, so that if I had used > "na....ca", it would mean "never during"

Yes, {na ... ca} works for me.

> So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu > natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu.

But {le du'u mi klama} and {le du'u noda ka'e klama} are contradictory by the rules of ordinary logic, not by any law dictated be the king.

> Or, in > English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is > allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land.

The rule says who is allowed to go, not what contradicts what. If the law said that everyone was allowed to go, your going would still contradict nobody being able to go.

> So taking > by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a > logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the > fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se > flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u) > is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe.

I agree there is a logical contradiction, but not that the contradiction derives from any non-logical law.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 23 of July, 2008 17:32 GMT posts: 350 Jim I'd love to help you, but I'm not sure how one gets off this llist

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/23/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> >> Well, I'd still like to convey the idea of the gate being the limit >> (the Hebrew word "ad" means "until or up to (a limit)". >

> Right, I don't think that works. I suppose you could say something > like {klama lo crane be lo vorme be'o .enai lo bancu}, but that > may be too wordy.

Okay, I'll take one more stab add it, adding a word to my last construction: klama ji'eku lo crane be lo vorme

It keeps lo crane as the destination, and adds an exisitng, but unspecified limit.


> >> So here was my thinking — le du'u mi klama cu >> natfe le du'u noda ka'e klama (=lo se flalu) kei le flalu. > > But {le du'u mi klama} and {le du'u noda ka'e klama} are contradictory > by the rules of ordinary logic, not by any law dictated be the king. > >> Or, in >> English, the fact of my going contradicts the fact that no one is >> allowed to go, under the rule system the laws of the land. > > The rule says who is allowed to go, not what contradicts what. > If the law said that everyone was allowed to go, your going would > still contradict nobody being able to go. > >> So taking >> by liberal interpretation, "the law" as a logical system, there is a >> logical contradiction between one rule, "no one may go" and the >> fact-on-the-ground, "I'll go". So I do agree with you that the se >> flalu (although se flalu is a state or event and se natfe is a du'u) >> is the se natfe, but I think le flalu is also the te natfe. > > I agree there is a logical contradiction, but not that the contradiction > derives from any non-logical law. >

Okay, that's true, but on the other hand, I gave you a se natfe as my example, but not in my original text. If the implied se natfe was "lo du'u noda kakne lo nu natfe lo se flalu" then it only works under the system of the laws. "I will go" doesn't contradict "nothing can break a law" unless "no one can go" is one of the rules. Where is it on of the rules? In the rule set know as "the Law". Basically, what I'm trying to say (although ultimately, there isn't much semantic difference) isn't "I will go, despite the fact that there is a specific law against it", but "I will go, despite the fact that I will be contravening the laws of the land (the specific details left unstated)".

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 17:42 GMT On 7/23/08, John O'Donoghue wrote: > Hi folks > > How can I get off this mailing list.

I think you have to do it through here:

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi/

(or ask the moderator, who may not be paying attention these days.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 23 of July, 2008 22:26 GMT {la .esTER dasni fi lo ka noltruni'u}: As I understand {dasni}, x3 is a property that x2 has or appears to have. For example: "ko'a dasni lo tansi lo ka mapku", "she wears a pan as a hat". It does not mean that x1 is dressed so as to display or appear to have property x3.

{.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"?

{lo xance po'e ny.}: "be ny"?

{.i .e'a ji'e fi'ure le se nolraitru ra ba se dunda fi do}: Maybe "ji'e tu'a .." since the limit to the giving would be giving half the kingdom, rather than the half of the kingdom itself.

{ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the very next day?

{loi ka fengu la mordeXAIS. la xaMAN. fanta tu'a xy.}: I think something went wrong here. A missing {.i}?

{da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this.

{.i la'edi'u lino vamji mi}: {.i noda prali mi la'edi'u}?

{gi'e klama fi'ose kansa le nolraitru balsai}: {le balsai}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 24 of July, 2008 18:14 GMT posts: 350 On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > {la .esTER dasni fi lo ka noltruni'u}: As I understand {dasni}, x3 is > a property that x2 has or appears to have. For example: "ko'a dasni lo > tansi lo ka mapku", "she wears a pan as a hat". It does not mean that > x1 is dressed so as to display or appear to have property x3. >

That's true. And that's exactly how the Hebrew has it: "Esther dressed in royalty...."

> {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"?

I assume you are asking "fa abu" instead of "ma'i abu"? It's hard to say. The Hebrew idiom is "She gained favor in his eyes", so I felt that "in his eyes" was more like defining a reference frame rather than directly approving her.


> {lo xance po'e ny.}: "be ny"?

Yes, thanks.

> > {.i .e'a ji'e fi'ure le se nolraitru ra ba se dunda fi do}: Maybe > "ji'e tu'a .." since the limit to the giving would be giving half the > kingdom, rather than the half of the kingdom itself.

I don't think it needs it. The whole point of modals is to give an extra place to the selbri that don't normally have it. There are a few gismu out there that already have a "limit" place, such as bancu and jbini. Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1 gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and jbini.

> {ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the > very next day?

Actually, it was the very same day. I think I was getting my points of reference confused, thinking that the "zu" was measured from now. What's the best way to say "Haman went out that day...."? "ca detri be lo nu go'i"?

> > {loi ka fengu la mordeXAIS. la xaMAN. fanta tu'a xy.}: I think > something went wrong here. A missing {.i}?

Yes, exactly. It should have been .i la xaMAN fanta... etc. Thanks

>

> {da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this. >

Do you mean like "i cusku fa la xaMAN. lu ji'a naku klagau fa la .esTER. po'u le noltruni'u na'ebo mi jo'u le nolraitru le balsai poi .ebu zbasu .iji'a ca lo bavlamdei mi se klacpe .ebu fi'o se kansa le nolraitru"?

(I'm not sure if I have the syntax right, I don't usually use na'ebo. Also, doesn't this sentence (as well as my old one) display the usual na-scope problems, in that maybe just someone other than the king was invited?)

> {.i la'edi'u lino vamji mi}: {.i noda prali mi la'edi'u}? > Okay, "la'e di'u na'e te prali mi" actually hews closer to the Hebrew.

> {gi'e klama fi'ose kansa le nolraitru balsai}: {le balsai}?

Indeed. Thanks.

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 24 of July, 2008 19:06 GMT On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > {la .esTER dasni fi lo ka noltruni'u}: As I understand {dasni}, x3 is > > a property that x2 has or appears to have. For example: "ko'a dasni lo > > tansi lo ka mapku", "she wears a pan as a hat". It does not mean that > > x1 is dressed so as to display or appear to have property x3. > > That's true. And that's exactly how the Hebrew has it: "Esther > dressed in royalty...."

Oh. That metaphor then might end up extending the meaning of "dasni" to cover both "x1 wears x2 as x3" and "x1 dresses as x3".

> > {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"? > > I assume you are asking "fa abu" instead of "ma'i abu"? It's hard to > say. The Hebrew idiom is "She gained favor in his eyes", so I felt > that "in his eyes" was more like defining a reference frame rather > than directly approving her.

There's the issue of the implicit "ce'u". The default reading would be {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka (ce'u) zanru ma'i .abu}: "She got to be an approver in his reference frame". You could fix that by changing it to "se zanru", but I really don't see that "ma'i .abu" is better than "fa .abu" for "in his eyes".


> Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1 > gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to > be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and > jbini.

Well, we knew already that we disagree about how BAIs add places. :-)

> > {ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the > > very next day? > > Actually, it was the very same day. I think I was getting my points > of reference confused, thinking that the "zu" was measured from now. > What's the best way to say "Haman went out that day...."? "ca detri > be lo nu go'i"?

The problem is that both conventions are available, speaker centered or story centered. I don't think the speaker is really very "present" here, so I didn't even consider that possibility. "le ca djedi" would be "the then day", just as you used "le bavlamdei" for the following day in the story and not the speaker's following day.

> > {da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this. > > Do you mean like "i cusku fa la xaMAN. lu ji'a naku klagau fa la > .esTER. po'u le noltruni'u na'ebo mi jo'u le nolraitru le balsai poi > .ebu zbasu .iji'a ca lo bavlamdei mi se klacpe .ebu fi'o se kansa le > nolraitru"? > > (I'm not sure if I have the syntax right, I don't usually use na'ebo.

"na'ebo" behaves exactly like "la'e", so it's "na'ebo (mi jo'u le nolraitru)", "someone other than me and the king".

> Also, doesn't this sentence (as well as my old one) display the usual > na-scope problems, in that maybe just someone other than the king was > invited?)

"naku" there denies that anyone other than me and the king were invited.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 24 of July, 2008 19:26 GMT posts: 350 >> > {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka zanru ma'i .abu}: "fa .abu"? >> >> I assume you are asking "fa abu" instead of "ma'i abu"? It's hard to >> say. The Hebrew idiom is "She gained favor in his eyes", so I felt >> that "in his eyes" was more like defining a reference frame rather >> than directly approving her. > > There's the issue of the implicit "ce'u". The default reading would be > {.ebu cpacu pe'a lo ka (ce'u) zanru ma'i .abu}: "She got to be an > approver in his reference frame". You could fix that by changing > it to "se zanru", but I really don't see that "ma'i .abu" is better > than "fa .abu" for "in his eyes". > I thought about it some more, and decided to go with your "fa abu"


> >> > {ca le zu djedi seci'o lo ka gleki je toldu'u}: "zu"? Wasn't that the >> > very next day? >> >> Actually, it was the very same day. I think I was getting my points >> of reference confused, thinking that the "zu" was measured from now. >> What's the best way to say "Haman went out that day...."? "ca detri >> be lo nu go'i"? > > The problem is that both conventions are available, speaker centered > or story centered. I don't think the speaker is really very "present" here, > so I didn't even consider that possibility. "le ca djedi" would be > "the then day", just as you used "le bavlamdei" for the following day in the > story and not the speaker's following day.

Okay, "ca le ca djedi" it is

> >> > {da noi nadu mi ku'o}: I prefer "na'e bo mi" for this. >> >> Do you mean like "i cusku fa la xaMAN. lu ji'a naku klagau fa la >> .esTER. po'u le noltruni'u na'ebo mi jo'u le nolraitru le balsai poi >> .ebu zbasu .iji'a ca lo bavlamdei mi se klacpe .ebu fi'o se kansa le >> nolraitru"? >> >> (I'm not sure if I have the syntax right, I don't usually use na'ebo. > > "na'ebo" behaves exactly like "la'e", so it's "na'ebo (mi jo'u le nolraitru)", > "someone other than me and the king". > >> Also, doesn't this sentence (as well as my old one) display the usual >> na-scope problems, in that maybe just someone other than the king was >> invited?) > > "naku" there denies that anyone other than me and the king were invited.

Okay, na'ebo it is.

Hey, you win 3 for 3!  :-)

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 24 of July, 2008 19:44 GMT On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > >Okay, I'll take one more stab add it, adding a word to my last construction: > >klama ji'eku lo crane be lo vorme > > (nor, for that matter, my last explanation of the "natfe" sentence) > > Didn't want to make any changes in the former without your okay

(It seems something got lost there.)

I can't really add much about those. To me ji'eku does not indicate that the going went so far and no further. It may hint at that, but nothing like English "up to". And a law as the logic for what counts as a contradiction also doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps someone else wants to chime in?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of July, 2008 12:45 GMT Some more thoughts about this:

On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1 > gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to > be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and > jbini.

Let's consider these English sentences:

He will give up to half the kingdom to the queen. He will give presents to up to half the kingdom. Up to half the kingdom will give presents to the queen.

In English, "up to half the kingdom" can be subject, direct object or indirect object, and its role is clearly shown by its position in the sentence. In Lojban "ji'e lo xadba be lo se nolraitru" cannot be any of x1, x2 or x3. In your example Xji'e is a limit to x2, but will this be so in general for any ji'e tag used with dunda, or only as determined by this context?

I suppose it is always be possible to disambiguate by adding a "seji'e lo dunda", "seji'e lo se dunda", "seji'e lo te dunda", or "teji'e lo ka dunda fa/fe/fi ce'u", and that this can be omitted when context makes it unnecessary. So ok, I will admit "ji'e" is usable here, even though its structure is quite different from the structure of English "up to" (and I assume also the corresponding Hebrew).

In fact "up to" works pretty much like "po'o" and "ji'a", marking instead of the only case or an additional case, the most extreme possible case. It's very similar to "at most". I use "do'a" and "do'anai" for "at most" and "at least", even though "do'a" is not officially classified in the po'o/ji'a group.

And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by PierreAbbat on Fri 25 of July, 2008 12:58 GMT posts: 324 On Friday 25 July 2008 08:45:25 Jorge Llambías wrote: > Some more thoughts about this: > > On 7/24/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > Here the "new and improved" English gloss would be "X1 > > gives X2 to X3 with limit Xji'e." I don't think that place needs to > > be limited to an abstraction any more than it needs it in bancu and > > jbini. > > Let's consider these English sentences: > > He will give up to half the kingdom to the queen. > He will give presents to up to half the kingdom. > Up to half the kingdom will give presents to the queen. > > In English, "up to half the kingdom" can be subject, > direct object or indirect object, and its role is clearly > shown by its position in the sentence. In Lojban "ji'e > lo xadba be lo se nolraitru" cannot be any of x1, x2 > or x3. In your example Xji'e is a limit to x2, but will this > be so in general for any ji'e tag used with dunda, or > only as determined by this context? > > I suppose it is always be possible to disambiguate by > adding a "seji'e lo dunda", "seji'e lo se dunda", "seji'e > lo te dunda", or "teji'e lo ka dunda fa/fe/fi ce'u", and that > this can be omitted when context makes it unnecessary. > So ok, I will admit "ji'e" is usable here, even though its > structure is quite different from the structure of English > "up to" (and I assume also the corresponding Hebrew).

How about attaching "ji'e lo xadba" to the sumti with "pe"?

Pierre


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:02 GMT posts: 350 On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > Some more thoughts about this: > > And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier > instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could > avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru". > > Actually, that's a perfect solution.

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:09 GMT On 7/25/08, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > How about attaching "ji'e lo xadba" to the sumti with "pe"?

In this case there was no actual sumti in x2, but I suppose "da pe ji'e lo xadba" would also do, or (better I think) "da poi se jimte lo xadba".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:16 GMT posts: 350 On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: >> Some more thoughts about this: >> >> And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier >> instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could >> avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru". >> >> > Actually, that's a perfect solution. > > --gejyspa

Actually, I changed my mind... It's not as good a solution. The context got lost in yoour excerpt. The point was that "ra "(lo se cpedu) was the se dunda, and it is that that should be limited. ---gy


Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 25 of July, 2008 13:20 GMT posts: 350 On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: >>> Some more thoughts about this: >>> >>> And in this particular example, since you used a quantifier >>> instead of "lo xadba" (which I would have used), you could >>> avoid all of that by using "(fe) su'e fi'ure lo se nolraitru". >>> >>> >> Actually, that's a perfect solution. >> >> --gejyspa > > Actually, I changed my mind... It's not as good a solution. The > context got lost in yoour excerpt. The point was that "ra "(lo se > cpedu) was the se dunda, and it is that that should be limited. > ---gy

Actually, I changed my mind yet again. That "ra" doesn't actually appear in the original Hebrew, so I will take your suggestion. I'm fickle!!! --gy >


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by JohnCowan on Fri 25 of July, 2008 16:28 GMT posts: 149 Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> He will give up to half the kingdom to the queen. > He will give presents to up to half the kingdom. > Up to half the kingdom will give presents to the queen.

(As a side note, the first of these is collective, but the other two must be distributive and refer to the *people* of the kingdom, because a kingdom can be neither agent nor recipient.)

> In English, "up to half the kingdom" can be subject, > direct object or indirect object, and its role is clearly > shown by its position in the sentence.

This can be achieved in Lojban with a well-chosen numeral: "su'epimu se nolraitru" is a proper sumti that can be put in any of the places of "dunda".

-- I could dance with you till the cows John Cowan come home. On second thought, I'd http://www.ccil.org/~cowan rather dance with the cows when you cowan@ccil.org come home. --Rufus T. Firefly


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 26 of July, 2008 14:42 GMT {ni'o le za nicte cu se tolra'i lo nu sipna fa le nolraitru}: Probably "le ca nicte", unless it's several nights later.

{re lo selfu be le nolraitru ku poi bandu le vrokoi}: "ku" should be "be'o" or "kuku", otherwise it's the king that defends the door-borders.

{.i cusku fa la nolraitru}: "le"?

{lu ma pu selzu'e co sinma je banli seva'u la mordeXAIS ki'u tu'a ti li'u}: "ti" should be "la'e di'u". "sinma je banli" sounds odd, because it is presumably not the sinma and banli x1's that are to be combined.

{le ze'o selsru stuzi po le zdani be le nolraitru}: "be" instead of "po"?

{.ijebo cusku fa le nolraitru lu .xy ba klama ti li'u}: Sounds like a command rather than a prediction. I would mark it with ".e'i" (and probably no "ba").

{lu paunai ma fi lo ka djica fa le nolraitru lo nu sinma vo'a kei cu zmadu mi li'u}: "vo'a" should be "ce'u".

{gi'e selbeike'egau ko'a le xirma bu'u le klaji pe le tcadu}: "be le tcadu"? Could "bu'u" be changed to "faxixa"? Instead of "selbeike'egau ko'a le xirma" I think "bevgau le xirma ko'a" might be easier to understand, eventually with reordered places.

{.ijebo ko na fliba su'opa pagbu be ro se cusku be do}: "la'e ro se cusku" ?

{se ca'ermuvgau pe'a zi'o}: Why add a gau place just to remove it again?

{fo ro fasnu sera'a xy.}: "fo ro se lifri be xy"?

{.i cusku fi xy. fa lo prije pe xy. ge'u joi la zerec. no'u le speni be xy. lu ...}: missing "li'u".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 28 of July, 2008 17:13 GMT posts: 350 On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > {ni'o le za nicte cu se tolra'i lo nu sipna fa le nolraitru}: Probably > "le ca nicte", unless it's several nights later. >

It was that night. I'll change that.

> {re lo selfu be le nolraitru ku poi bandu le vrokoi}: "ku" should be > "be'o" or "kuku", otherwise it's the king that defends the > door-borders. > Oops! Fixed to be'o. Thanks!

> {.i cusku fa la nolraitru}: "le"?

Fixed. I also made that mistake in chapter 1, which I now fixed, also.

> > {lu ma pu selzu'e co sinma je banli seva'u la mordeXAIS ki'u tu'a ti > li'u}: "ti" should be "la'e di'u".

Should it? Referring to the referred-to-but-not-actually-quoted reading that was presumably done from the book? Is another possibility la'eti (the king pointing to the book)?

> "sinma je banli" sounds odd, > because it is presumably not the sinma and banli x1's that are to be > combined. >

You don't think it that it would be both a sinma selzu'e and a banli selzu'e? The action is something that is both grand and esteeming (of Mordechai).


> {le ze'o selsru stuzi po le zdani be le nolraitru}: "be" instead of "po"? >

No, "po" is correct here. It's the outer courtyard (selsru stuzi) of the house, not the outer surrounded (site of the house).

> {.ijebo cusku fa le nolraitru lu .xy ba klama ti li'u}: Sounds like a > command rather than a prediction. I would mark it with ".e'i" (and > probably no "ba").

I'm uncomfortable with that on a couple of levels. First, I've always disagreed with you that e'i should be used for commands. I think "ei" would be more appropriate. Second, it is in the Hebrew in simple future tense. And let's face it, when the king predicts something, it happens (cf. The Little Prince Chapter 10) (If I were writing the story, I probably have said "ko curmi lo nu xy klama ti", myself, or if, in more of a hurry "ko klagau xy ti")


> > {lu paunai ma fi lo ka djica fa le nolraitru lo nu sinma vo'a kei cu > zmadu mi li'u}: "vo'a" should be "ce'u".

In partial agreement here, but couldn't the ce'u be referring to the "focus" of the nu? (I can pretty much guess what you are going to say here, that only "ka"'s can take "ce'u", and "nu" cannot, but I disagree, since we often (as here) elide the x1 of "nu's". It would seem to me that with the ce'u, the sentence would read "What X has more of the property of the king desiring to be honored for desiring purpose X than me?" ) (I might use "ce'uxire", but if my understanding of ce'us in nu's is nonstandard, that would confuse more than it enlightened.)


> > {gi'e selbeike'egau ko'a le xirma bu'u le klaji pe le tcadu}: "be le > tcadu"?

I guess so

> Could "bu'u" be changed to "faxixa"?

Could it? I always wondered if that was a legal reference to >5 places....Ah, I see know in CLL 19.6.6 that it is. Fine, no problem.

> Instead of "selbeike'egau ko'a le xirma" I think "bevgau le xirma ko'a" might be easier to > understand, eventually with reordered places. >

I hate that mouthful of a word myself, but then, Ive always hated that lojban doesn't really have a word for ride (vehicle/animal). Hebrew compounds the problem by having a word for "cause to ride", as here. So, while I"m not fond of it, I'm gonna keep it as is.

> {.ijebo ko na fliba su'opa pagbu be ro se cusku be do}: "la'e ro se cusku" ?

Sure. Thanks

> > {se ca'ermuvgau pe'a zi'o}: Why add a gau place just to remove it again? >

uasai se jijnu preti .i la'acu'i mi pilno du'e xalka zo'o

Of course, I got the ca'ermuvgau from the gi'uste, but you are absolutely right. It doesn't make sense, if I'm deleting the agent. (although, of course, really, Haman's the agent. I get in English we would say "he dragged himself home".) So ca'ermu'u makes better sense here, and removal of the zi'o (and se)

> {fo ro fasnu sera'a xy.}: "fo ro se lifri be xy"? >

Yes. Don't know why I forgot lifri and its derivatives throughout this tale.


> {.i cusku fi xy. fa lo prije pe xy. ge'u joi la zerec. no'u le speni > be xy. lu ...}: missing "li'u". >

Thanks... these are the toughest errors to find

--gejyspa


> > > >


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of July, 2008 18:17 GMT On 7/28/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > {lu ma pu selzu'e co sinma je banli seva'u la mordeXAIS ki'u tu'a ti > > li'u}: "ti" should be "la'e di'u". > > Should it? Referring to the referred-to-but-not-actually-quoted > reading that was presumably done from the book? Is another > possibility la'eti (the king pointing to the book)?

It doesn't matter that the referent of "di'u" doesn't show up in the narrator's text, because the word "di'u" is not being used by the narrator, just quoted as part of what the king said.

> > "sinma je banli" sounds odd, > > because it is presumably not the sinma and banli x1's that are to be > > combined. > > You don't think it that it would be both a sinma selzu'e and a banli > selzu'e? The action is something that is both grand and esteeming (of > Mordechai).

As I understand it, x1 of sinma is for people, not for actions. "sinma selzu'e" by itself is fine because it can be understood as "zelzu'e be lo sinma" or something like that, but I don't think "broda je brode brodi" expands to "broda brodi gi'e brode brodi". For me "broda je brode" is composed before it, as a whole, modifies "brodi". So the effect is similar to "skilled and lion hunter" for a hunter that is both skilled and hunts lions.

> > {.ijebo cusku fa le nolraitru lu .xy ba klama ti li'u}: Sounds like a > > command rather than a prediction. I would mark it with ".e'i" (and > > probably no "ba"). > > I'm uncomfortable with that on a couple of levels. First, I've > always disagreed with you that e'i should be used for commands. I > think "ei" would be more appropriate.

For me, with "ei" it would say "X ought to come here". Not a command but an expression of how the speaker feels things ought to be.

> Second, it is in the Hebrew in > simple future tense.

Does the Hebrew have the option of an imperative there, or does it always use future for this kind of third person imperatives? If it has the option, and it chooses future over imperative, then that's a valid point. If the Hebrew uses the future because that is the normal way such imperatives are formed in Hebrew, then I don't think that's a valid reason to use "ba".

> And let's face it, when the king predicts > something, it happens (cf. The Little Prince Chapter 10)

Only if he's very careful with what he commands. :-)

>(If I were > writing the story, I probably have said "ko curmi lo nu xy klama ti", > myself,

That sounds like malglico for a third person command.

> or if, in more of a hurry "ko klagau xy ti")

That would be fine.

> > {lu paunai ma fi lo ka djica fa le nolraitru lo nu sinma vo'a kei cu > > zmadu mi li'u}: "vo'a" should be "ce'u". > > In partial agreement here, but couldn't the ce'u be referring to the > "focus" of the nu? (I can pretty much guess what you are going to say > here, that only "ka"'s can take "ce'u", and "nu" cannot,

Right.

> but I > disagree, since we often (as here) elide the x1 of "nu's".

Eliding the x1 of a nu is fine, but then what is elided is not a ce'u.

> It would > seem to me that with the ce'u, the sentence would read "What X has > more of the property of the king desiring to be honored for desiring > purpose X than me?" ) (I might use "ce'uxire", but if my understanding > of ce'us in nu's is nonstandard, that would confuse more than it > enlightened.)

But why use vo'a and not vo'e, since it is both the x1 and the x2 of zmadu that are being compared in the property "lo ka djica fa le nolraitru lo nu (ri) sinma ce'u"


> > Instead of "selbeike'egau ko'a le xirma" I think "bevgau le xirma ko'a" might be easier to > > understand, eventually with reordered places. > > I hate that mouthful of a word myself, but then, Ive always hated > that lojban doesn't really have a word for ride (vehicle/animal).

I think I normally use "litru fi" for that.

> Hebrew compounds the problem by having a word for "cause to ride", as > here. So, while I"m not fond of it, I'm gonna keep it as is.

I think you don't really need the "ke'e", since the default grouping would be "(se bevri) gasnu" anyway.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 29 of July, 2008 13:10 GMT posts: 350 On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/28/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: >> > {lu ma pu selzu'e co sinma je banli seva'u la mordeXAIS ki'u tu'a ti >> > li'u}: "ti" should be "la'e di'u". >> >> Should it? Referring to the referred-to-but-not-actually-quoted >> reading that was presumably done from the book? Is another >> possibility la'eti (the king pointing to the book)? > > It doesn't matter that the referent of "di'u" doesn't show up in the > narrator's text, because the word "di'u" is not being used by the > narrator, just quoted as part of what the king said.

I was afraid if I did that some wiseguy named xorxes would come by and say," what's the di'u referring to? Maybe the last thing the servants said was that they need to go the outhouse...."

> >> > "sinma je banli" sounds odd, >> > because it is presumably not the sinma and banli x1's that are to be >> > combined. >> >> You don't think it that it would be both a sinma selzu'e and a banli >> selzu'e? The action is something that is both grand and esteeming (of >> Mordechai). > > As I understand it, x1 of sinma is for people, not for actions. > "sinma selzu'e" by itself is fine because it can be understood as > "zelzu'e be lo sinma" or something like that,

zelzu'e? No, there were be a lot more than 7 action takers here ;-)


> but I don't think "broda > je brode brodi" expands to "broda brodi gi'e brode brodi".

It's true, it doesn't, necessarily, unless broda and brode relate to brodi in the same way (and maybe not even then). But the sticking point HERE is (as you say above) can an action be sinma? Would you grant me that a person can be both grand and esteeming, so you would have no problem with a "sinma je banli prenu" (only those subset of people who are both grand and esteem something)? I'm open to other word choices if you don't like sinma. tersla? Does that convey "honor" enough? si'atersla?

> For me > "broda je brode" is composed before it, as a whole, modifies "brodi". > So the effect is similar to "skilled and lion hunter" for a hunter that > is both skilled and hunts lions. >

Except here, the relationship between "skilled" and "hunter" isn't the same as the relationship between "lion" and "hunter"

>> > {.ijebo cusku fa le nolraitru lu .xy ba klama ti li'u}: Sounds like a >> > command rather than a prediction. I would mark it with ".e'i" (and >> > probably no "ba"). >> >> I'm uncomfortable with that on a couple of levels. First, I've >> always disagreed with you that e'i should be used for commands. I >> think "ei" would be more appropriate. > > For me, with "ei" it would say "X ought to come here". Not a command > but an expression of how the speaker feels things ought to be.

Whereas to me, "e'i" would convey something along the lines of, "*sigh* I suppose he must come in, despite the fact that I really don't like him, since I have to entertain all important visitors. Noblesse oblige, and all like that there."

> >> Second, it is in the Hebrew in >> simple future tense. > > Does the Hebrew have the option of an imperative there, or does > it always use future for this kind of third person imperatives? If it > has the option, and it chooses future over imperative, then that's > a valid point. If the Hebrew uses the future because that is the > normal way such imperatives are formed in Hebrew, then I don't > think that's a valid reason to use "ba". >

I'm curious. Does any language have a third person imperative? I always thought they should, but not sure if it's a recognized construction. Lojban certainly doesn't. (Hmm.. it seems that Turkish and maybe Greek does....) Hebrew doesn't. Is English's "Let him come" really a third person imperative? Or is it simply a indirect imperative conveyed to a second person to convey to a third person? In any case, I very skeptical that any UI can create such a construction.

>> And let's face it, when the king predicts >> something, it happens (cf. The Little Prince Chapter 10) > > Only if he's very careful with what he commands. :-) >

I was being somewhat flippant here, but my point was serious. If the king says, "he WILL come", it's understood by the audience to be a command. If he just says "He comes", it's just an observation.

>>(If I were writing the story, I probably have said "ko curmi lo nu xy klama ti", >> myself,) > > That sounds like malglico for a third person command. >

No, I mean what it says here. "Permit him to enter (Don't bar his way. He may come in)." This is a passive permission, which may be what is meant in the original text.

>> or if, in more of a hurry "ko klagau xy ti") > > That would be fine.

But this isn't in the text. Because second person commands certainly exist, and axacyveroc. is not shy in using them. So I think he was conveying to his guards permission rather than an order for Haman.

> >> > {lu paunai ma fi lo ka djica fa le nolraitru lo nu sinma vo'a kei cu >> > zmadu mi li'u}: "vo'a" should be "ce'u". >> >> In partial agreement here, but couldn't the ce'u be referring to the >> "focus" of the nu? (I can pretty much guess what you are going to say >> here, that only "ka"'s can take "ce'u", and "nu" cannot, > > Right. > >> but I >> disagree, since we often (as here) elide the x1 of "nu's". > > Eliding the x1 of a nu is fine, but then what is elided is not a ce'u. >

Are you sure? I would disagree with you (and I know other jbocre who would agree). For example, If I were to say "mi nelci lo nu klama lo mivdalmuzga" I contend that this is no less nor more than "mi nelci lo nu ce'u klama lo mivdalmuzga" -> I enjoy the event of ME going to the zoo. If we enjoyed the event of someone else going to the zoo, we would need to fill that X1 place. Therefore, I could say "mi nelci lo nu lo mivdalmuzga se klama ce'u" — I enjoy the zoo being visited by me". So, if ce'u COULD be in any NU construction (although of course, it need not), then if it is explicitly there, it must be understood by the innermost-first rule.


>> It would >> seem to me that with the ce'u, the sentence would read "What X has >> more of the property of the king desiring to be honored for desiring >> purpose X than me?" ) (I might use "ce'uxire", but if my understanding >> of ce'us in nu's is nonstandard, that would confuse more than it >> enlightened.) > > But why use vo'a and not vo'e, since it is both the x1 and the x2 of > zmadu that are being compared in the property "lo ka djica fa le > nolraitru lo nu (ri) sinma ce'u" >

This is the part where I partially agreed with you. I agree that "vo'a" isn't really right.

> >> > Instead of "selbeike'egau ko'a le xirma" I think "bevgau le xirma ko'a" might be easier to >> > understand, eventually with reordered places. >> >> I hate that mouthful of a word myself, but then, Ive always hated >> that lojban doesn't really have a word for ride (vehicle/animal). > > I think I normally use "litru fi" for that.

I guess you could. that's not bad.

>> Hebrew compounds the problem by having a word for "cause to ride", as >> here. So, while I"m not fond of it, I'm gonna keep it as is. > > I think you don't really need the "ke'e", since the default grouping > would be "(se bevri) gasnu" anyway.

I'm not so sure that's true. Let's say you had a lujvo like jungau, and you wanted to talk about the information conveyed, "se jungau". You are asserting that if you made a lujvo saying "seljungau", it would be by default interpreted as se djuno gasnu, to make (something) into a known fact, rather than se jungau? It's this worry that initial SE rafsi will "fall off" into "se beigau" that made me put that in there.

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by JohnCowan on Tue 29 of July, 2008 14:02 GMT posts: 149 Michael Turniansky scripsit:

> I'm curious. Does any language have a third person imperative?

Latin does. The ancient pre-classical legal code called the Twelve Tables seems to have been written mostly in 3rd-person imperative:

Si in ius vocat, ito; ni it, antestamino; igitur em capito.

(If someone is summoned to court, let him go; if he does not go, let a witness be obtained; thereafter let him be seized.)

-- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash, The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!" It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall, But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall. --The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of July, 2008 15:06 GMT On 7/29/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > I'm open to other > word choices if you don't like sinma. tersla? Does that convey > "honor" enough? si'atersla?

"banli je selsi'a selzu'e", "banli je tersla selzu'e", "banli je si'artersla selzu'e" all sound ok to me.

> > So the effect is similar to "skilled and lion hunter" for a hunter that > > is both skilled and hunts lions. > > Except here, the relationship between "skilled" and "hunter" isn't > the same as the relationship between "lion" and "hunter"

Right, that's the same odd effect I get from "banli je sinma selzu'e": the relationship between banli and selzu'e doen't seem the same as the one between sinma and selzu'e.


> Whereas to me, "e'i" would convey something along the lines of, > "*sigh* I suppose he must come in, despite the fact that I really > don't like him, since I have to entertain all important visitors. > Noblesse oblige, and all like that there."

Right, I understand that. Unfortunately there is no official way to do third person imperatives, and that's why I use ".e'i", which is the best I could find. The natural place for such marker is the e-series of UIs, along with suggestions, requests, exhortations and permissions.

> I'm curious. Does any language have a third person imperative?

Esperanto does.

> Is English's "Let him > come" really a third person imperative? Or is it simply a indirect > imperative conveyed to a second person to convey to a third person?

Semantically, it can play the role of a third person imperative. Syntactically, it's a second person imperative.

Spanish uses yet another trick for this: the subjunctive.

> So I think > he was conveying to his guards permission rather than an order for > Haman.

If that's the case ".e'a" would seem an appropriate marker.

> > Eliding the x1 of a nu is fine, but then what is elided is not a ce'u. > > Are you sure? I would disagree with you (and I know other jbocre > who would agree). For example, If I were to say "mi nelci lo nu klama > lo mivdalmuzga" I contend that this is no less nor more than "mi > nelci lo nu ce'u klama lo mivdalmuzga" -> I enjoy the event of ME > going to the zoo.

Whereas I would understand it to be "mi nelci lo nu mi klama lo mivdalmuzga".

> So, if ce'u COULD be in any NU construction > (although of course, it need not), then if it is explicitly there, it > must be understood by the innermost-first rule.

Yes, I agree with that. But in my understanding "ce'u" always goes with "ka". Sometimes with "ni", but never with "nu".


> >> > "selbeike'egau" > >> I hate that mouthful of a word myself, but then, Ive always hated > >> that lojban doesn't really have a word for ride (vehicle/animal). > > > > I think I normally use "litru fi" for that. > > I guess you could. that's not bad.

If you use "li'urgau" you don't need the ugly faxixa.

> > I think you don't really need the "ke'e", since the default grouping > > would be "(se bevri) gasnu" anyway. > > I'm not so sure that's true. Let's say you had a lujvo like jungau, > and you wanted to talk about the information conveyed, "se jungau". > You are asserting that if you made a lujvo saying "seljungau", it > would be by default interpreted as se djuno gasnu, to make (something) > into a known fact, rather than se jungau?

I think so, yes. You'd need {selkemjungau} for the other, from "se ke djuno gasnu".

> It's this worry that > initial SE rafsi will "fall off" into "se beigau" that made me put > that in there.

I don't think there is a definitive rule for lujvo, but at least in the case of tanru it's "(se bevri) gasnu" or "se ke bevri gasnu".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 29 of July, 2008 15:34 GMT posts: 350 On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/29/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> I'm open to other >> word choices if you don't like sinma. tersla? Does that convey >> "honor" enough? si'atersla? > > "banli je selsi'a selzu'e", "banli je tersla selzu'e", "banli je si'artersla > selzu'e" all sound ok to me. >

Changed to si'artersla

>

> > If you use "li'urgau" you don't need the ugly faxixa. >

Okay, changed, with appropriate FA changes


> I think so, yes. You'd need {selkemjungau} for the other, from > "se ke djuno gasnu". > >> It's this worry that >> initial SE rafsi will "fall off" into "se beigau" that made me put >> that in there. > > I don't think there is a definitive rule for lujvo, but at least in the case > of tanru it's "(se bevri) gasnu" or "se ke bevri gasnu". >

Sure, but explicit tanru rules and implicit lujvo rules don't always coincide.

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of July, 2008 21:43 GMT -7-

{.i cusku fa lo nolraitru fi la .esTER. ji'a ca lo remoi be lo djedi}: "ca lo ji'a"?

{ge le nunji'e be mi bei fi'o se danfu lo se djica be mi gi le natmi be mi bei fi'o se danfu le se cpedu be mi}: Would "fi'o se spuda" make more sense than "fi'o se danfu"? Wishes and requests are not relly questions/problems.

{.i ganai da'i tezu'e tu'a lo selbapselfu je nimselbapselfu ku mi'a se vecnu gi mi nalta'a}: "lo selbapselfu je nimselbapselfu" is someone who is both selpabselfu and nimselbapselfu, I think you want ".e lo" rather than "je", or at least "jo'u". Also, don't you need "naur-" to contrast with "nim-"?

{lo ni velxai le nolraitru}: Is there any difference between "lo ni velxai le nolraitru" and "lo ni xrani le nolraitru"? They both seem to be "the extent to which the king is injured".

{ma du da .ijebo ma selzva da poi culno...}: It took me a while to figure that one out. I think something like ".i me ma gi'e zvati ma vau fa da poi culno ..." might be easier to follow. The restriction of "da" after it first appears is odd.

{.i le nolraitru cu sanli va'o lo ka}: I'd say "va'o lo nu" or "fau lo nu" here.

{ny. fengu teka'a le balsai co vanju seka'a le purdi pe le zdani}: "he is angry from the banquet to the garden"?

{le flira be la xaMAN. cu te gairgau fi su'oreda}: I didn't comment before, but you used "su'ore" like this a few times, presumably to translate a simple plural. It sounds overly marked and strange to specify "at least two" when presumably in the original the number is as unspecified as can be.

{.ijebo cusku fa le nolraitru lu ko dadycatra xy. dy.}: "xy boi".

{.i lo kamfe'u po'e le nolraitru}: "be le nolraitru"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Wed 30 of July, 2008 20:12 GMT posts: 350 On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > -7- > > {.i cusku fa lo nolraitru fi la .esTER. ji'a ca lo remoi be lo djedi}: > "ca lo ji'a"?

Fine

> > {ge le nunji'e be mi bei fi'o se danfu lo se djica be mi gi le natmi > be mi bei fi'o se danfu le se cpedu be mi}: Would "fi'o se spuda" make > more sense than "fi'o se danfu"? Wishes and requests are not relly > questions/problems.

Actually, I wouldn't mind trimming out the modal entirely if I can figure out how. It's really ".....my life for my desire and my people for my request"

ge le nunji'e be mi bei do'e lo se djica be mi gi le natmi be mi bei do'e le se cpedu be mi

But what should be that do'e here? (Or is do'e good enough?) Should it be something other than a modal?

> {.i ganai da'i tezu'e tu'a lo selbapselfu je nimselbapselfu ku mi'a se > vecnu gi mi nalta'a}: "lo selbapselfu je nimselbapselfu" is someone > who is both selpabselfu and nimselbapselfu, I think you want ".e lo" > rather than "je", or at least "jo'u".

Actually jonai would also work here, but you are right that .e lo is right.

>Also, don't you need "naur-" to > contrast with "nim-"? >

I suppose it wouldn't hurt


> {lo ni velxai le nolraitru}: Is there any difference between "lo ni > velxai le nolraitru" and "lo ni xrani le nolraitru"? They both seem to > be "the extent to which the king is injured".

"lo ni {ce'u} xrani le nolraitru" would be the amount/extent of being an injurors of the king, rather than the extent of inuries. (Haman has a lot of "ka xrani le nolraitru" but has no "ka velxai le nolraitru")

> > {ma du da .ijebo ma selzva da poi culno...}: It took me a while to > figure that one out. I think something like ".i me ma gi'e zvati ma > vau fa da poi culno ..." might be easier to follow. The restriction of > "da" after it first appears is odd.

I have no objection.

> > {.i le nolraitru cu sanli va'o lo ka}: I'd say "va'o lo nu" or "fau lo nu" here. >

No problem

> {ny. fengu teka'a le balsai co vanju seka'a le purdi pe le zdani}: "he > is angry from the banquet to the garden"?

I need at a kei before teka'a. There is possibly an additional problem is there is an elided verb "and went". It actually is "the king stood in his anger, from the banquet to the palace garden." But it's an odd image to that someone can stand from one place to another, unless the latter is a few feet above the first (indeed most English versions add "and went").

> > {le flira be la xaMAN. cu te gairgau fi su'oreda}: I didn't comment > before, but you used "su'ore" like this a few times, presumably to > translate a simple plural. It sounds overly marked and strange to > specify "at least two" when presumably in the original the number is > as unspecified as can be.

Well, it's not "as unspecified as can be". It says, "they covered his face" The problem with lojban is that it can't very well handle pronouns that have no antecdent. Who is "they"? We can't rightly say, although we may infer it was some servants. But we CAN know there were at least two. Every time I have used it in Esther it's been in "su'oreda" with one exception, "su'ore pendo", for he was with his wife and friends. I wanted to preserve the fact evident in the Hebrew that he had at least two friends, not just one, which lo pendo could conceivably be.

> {.ijebo cusku fa le nolraitru lu ko dadycatra xy. dy.}: "xy boi".

Right you are.. thanks

> > {.i lo kamfe'u po'e le nolraitru}: "be le nolraitru"? >

I'm not sure. Is there a more-or-less standard place value for kam- words?

kambroda -> X1=K1 ka X2=B1 broda X3=B2 X4=B3...? --gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of July, 2008 22:24 GMT On 7/30/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > Actually, I wouldn't mind trimming out the modal entirely if I can > figure out how. It's really ".....my life for my desire and my people > for my request" > > ge le nunji'e be mi bei do'e lo se djica be mi gi le natmi be mi bei > do'e le se cpedu be mi > > But what should be that do'e here? (Or is do'e good enough?) > Should it be something other than a modal?

I would say "my life" and "for my desire" should really two sparate constituents. "For my desire" is a qualification of the giving, not really a specification of "my life". If "spudu'a" means "x1 gives x2 to x3 in response to x4", then that could be:

ko spudu'a fi mi nu'i ge fe lo nunji'e be mi fo lo nu mi djica gi fe lo natmi be mi fo lo nu mi cpedu


> > {lo ni velxai le nolraitru}: Is there any difference between "lo ni > > velxai le nolraitru" and "lo ni xrani le nolraitru"? They both seem to > > be "the extent to which the king is injured". > > "lo ni {ce'u} xrani le nolraitru" would be the amount/extent of being > an injurors of the king, rather than the extent of inuries. (Haman > has a lot of "ka xrani le nolraitru" but has no "ka velxai le > nolraitru")

If the selbri was "x1 has lot of (property) x2", that would make sense. But the selbri we are dealing with is "x1 is worth x2". "naku le raktu cu selva'i lo ni velxai le nolraitru". "Haman is not worth the extent to which he is an injury to the king"? But Haman is the injurer, not the injury.


> It actually is "the > king stood in his anger, from the banquet to the palace garden." But > it's an odd image to that someone can stand from one place to another, > unless the latter is a few feet above the first (indeed most English > versions add "and went").

"sanli teka'a seka'a" would suggest that he walked upright. Does "sanli" require standing in place, or just being upright (i.e. not crouching or lying down.)


> > It sounds overly marked and strange to > > specify "at least two" when presumably in the original the number is > > as unspecified as can be. > > Well, it's not "as unspecified as can be".

How could you make the number any less specific in English, without resorting to long circumlocutions?

> It says, "they covered > his face" The problem with lojban is that it can't very well handle > pronouns that have no antecdent. Who is "they"?

For me it would be just "da". Number unspecified.

> We can't rightly > say, although we may infer it was some servants. But we CAN know > there were at least two.

Yes, because English (and I assume Hebrew) has obligatory number. But "they" is what you use when you don't really care to say how many. It is incidental that "they" requires at least two, because that's the least specific choice we have. The Lojban "su'oreda" in contrast draws an excessive amount of attention to this minimum number, when it's really quite irrelevant.

> Every time I have used it in Esther it's > been in "su'oreda" with one exception, "su'ore pendo", for he was with > his wife and friends. I wanted to preserve the fact evident in the > Hebrew that he had at least two friends, not just one, which lo pendo > could conceivably be.

In the case of the friends, I might have used "so'o". In the other cases just plain "da".

> > {.i lo kamfe'u po'e le nolraitru}: "be le nolraitru"? > > I'm not sure. Is there a more-or-less standard place value for kam- words? > > kambroda -> X1=K1 ka X2=B1 broda X3=B2 X4=B3...?

At least that's how it works for "nu". I had the idea this was discusssed in CLL for all NUs, but I can't find it now in any of the places where I might expect it to be.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 31 of July, 2008 21:17 GMT -8-

{ki'u lo nu jungau fa la .esTER. zo'e lo selbri be fi xy. ce'o .ebu}: How about "fo lo te ckini be xy bei .ebu" or "fi lo du'u makau te ckini xy boi .ebu"? A selbri is a word or phrase, a least as normally used if not as defined.

{.i le nolraitru cu vimcu lo djine po ny. zi'e noi .ny pu vimcu fi la xaMAN. ku'o}: Is the second "vimcu" meant to be "dunda"?

{va'o ge ge ge}: Ouch! You can get the same effect and less pain with "ge ... gige ... gige ... gi ...".

{poi selpla la xaMAN. poi bersa be la xamdatan. noi me la .aGAG. be'o ku'o ku'o zi'e poi se ciska}: A way to avoid that "be'o ku'o ku'o" is "poi ge selpla ... gi se ciska ..."

{lo selci'a poi ... cu na'e ka'e se natfe}: I suspect this is either false (because every meaningful statemment has a corresponding contradictory statement) or else it implies that lo selci'a is nonsense (assuming some nonsense may not have a corresponding contradictory nonsense). I think what we would want to say is that la'e lo selci'a cannot be opposed, or something like that. But also I think it would be interesting to understand "natfe" better, as I'm not sure that as defined it has much practical use at all.

{.ijebo ciska la'e ro termi'e}: I think it's "lu'e" rahther than "la'e" there.

{fi'o velnoi ro selje'a be tai le selyle'u pe ri fi'o velnoi ro natmi bau le bangu pe ri}: "be bau"? But I suspect this is another termset situation.

{lo bropre cu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: "lo bi'unai djedi"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 01 of Aug., 2008 17:18 GMT posts: 350 On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/30/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> >> Actually, I wouldn't mind trimming out the modal entirely if I can >> figure out how. It's really ".....my life for my desire and my people >> for my request" >> >> ge le nunji'e be mi bei do'e lo se djica be mi gi le natmi be mi bei >> do'e le se cpedu be mi >> >> But what should be that do'e here? (Or is do'e good enough?) >> Should it be something other than a modal? > > I would say "my life" and "for my desire" should really two sparate > constituents. "For my desire" is a qualification of the giving, not really > a specification of "my life". If "spudu'a" means "x1 gives x2 to x3 > in response to x4", then that could be: > > ko spudu'a fi mi nu'i ge fe lo nunji'e be mi fo lo nu mi djica gi > fe lo natmi be mi fo lo nu mi cpedu >

Here's another idea: ko dunda fi mi nu'i ge fe le nunji'e be mi fi'o se spuda lo se djica be mi gi fe le natmi be mi fi'o se spuda le se cpedu be mi

By using a termset, I'm causing the "fi'o se spuda"... to be associated with the bridi and not the se dunda, with each argument pair in tandem (nunji'e be mi/lo se djica; le natmi be mi/le se cpedu) answering your objection above, without having to create another lujvo.

>> > {lo ni velxai le nolraitru}: Is there any difference between "lo ni >> > velxai le nolraitru" and "lo ni xrani le nolraitru"? They both seem to >> > be "the extent to which the king is injured". >> >> "lo ni {ce'u} xrani le nolraitru" would be the amount/extent of being >> an injurors of the king, rather than the extent of inuries. (Haman >> has a lot of "ka xrani le nolraitru" but has no "ka velxai le >> nolraitru") > > If the selbri was "x1 has lot of (property) x2", that would make > sense. But the selbri we are dealing with is "x1 is worth x2". > "naku le raktu cu selva'i lo ni velxai le nolraitru". "Haman is not > worth the extent to which he is an injury to the king"? But Haman > is the injurer, not the injury. >

This is actually another verse which has given translators trouble. Here are some versions in English: ...the adversary has no consideration for the king's loss. ...the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged ...the trouble would not be commensurate with the annoyance to the king ...the enemy could not countervail the king's damage. ...the adversity is not equal to the loss of the king.

As you see, about the only thing they agree on is "the king" ;-) But in any case, "le raktu" here is vague, it may be Haman, or it may be the trouble caused by Haman. (Hebrew happens to be vague in the same here as lojban). The "lo ni velxai le nolraitru" nowhere suggests (to me, at any rate) that it's a property of "le raktu" (once again it's an artifact of the X1 of vamji)


>> It actually is "the >> king stood in his anger, from the banquet to the palace garden." But >> it's an odd image to that someone can stand from one place to another, >> unless the latter is a few feet above the first (indeed most English >> versions add "and went"). > > "sanli teka'a seka'a" would suggest that he walked upright. Does > "sanli" require standing in place, or just being upright (i.e. not > crouching or lying down.)

The lojban word? The latter, I think.

>> > It sounds overly marked and strange to >> > specify "at least two" when presumably in the original the number is >> > as unspecified as can be. >> >> Well, it's not "as unspecified as can be". > > How could you make the number any less specific in English, > without resorting to long circumlocutions? >

It's called passive voice — "Haman's face was covered". Works in Hebrew as well as English. The active party is completely obscured. They didn't do that, so the plurality is perforce significant

>> It says, "they covered >> his face" The problem with lojban is that it can't very well handle >> pronouns that have no antecdent. Who is "they"? > > For me it would be just "da". Number unspecified. > >> We can't rightly >> say, although we may infer it was some servants. But we CAN know >> there were at least two. > > Yes, because English (and I assume Hebrew) has obligatory number.

Like Spanish, the number can be told from the conjugation of the verb.

> But "they" is what you use when you don't really care to say how many.

But you needn't have a subject at all if it had been recast as passive.

> It is incidental that "they" requires at least two, because that's the least > specific choice we have. The Lojban "su'oreda" in contrast draws an > excessive amount of attention to this minimum number, when it's really > quite irrelevant.

It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. For example, when I used it in Chapter 5: i cusku fi .xy fa la zerec. noi speni be xy. ku'o .e ro pendo be xy. fe lu e'u su'oreda zbasu lo te dadycatra co birgutci be ga'u bei li muno .i ca le cerni ko cusku fi le nolraitru gi'e dadycatra la mordeXAIS. ra gi'e klama fi'ose kansa le nolraitru le balsai seci'o lo ka gleki li'u .ijebo xamgu fa le selsku la xaMAN. .ijebo .xy zbasu le te dadycatra

When I first came across that while translating it, I noticed something interesting — His wife's suggestion was that some unspecified "they" build a gallows, but then it says "and Haman built the gallows". I remarked about this to my rabbi: "Interesting. Note that apparently, building a 50-cubit gallows is (not surprisingly) a job for many people, but that it says at the end that Haman built it, appoarently by himself. I suppose this was because of his zeal to destroy Mordechai lent him the strength to do it alone?" His reply was that the Jewish commentator known as the Malbim (1809-1879) wrote along the same lines.

My point? One can extract meanings or parables from the wording, and to just trash it on the altar of lobykai would be a disservice.

>> Every time I have used it in Esther it's >> been in "su'oreda" with one exception, "su'ore pendo", for he was with >> his wife and friends. I wanted to preserve the fact evident in the >> Hebrew that he had at least two friends, not just one, which lo pendo >> could conceivably be. > > In the case of the friends, I might have used "so'o". In the other cases > just plain "da". > Exccept we have no way of knowing whether he had so'o friends, so'u friends, or so'i friends. su'ore keeps the ambiguity, and sticks to the facts we know.

>> > {.i lo kamfe'u po'e le nolraitru}: "be le nolraitru"? >> >> I'm not sure. Is there a more-or-less standard place value for kam- words? >> >> kambroda -> X1=K1 ka X2=B1 broda X3=B2 X4=B3...? > > At least that's how it works for "nu". I had the idea this was discusssed > in CLL for all NUs, but I can't find it now in any of the places where I might > expect it to be.

Okay, that's fine. I'll change it. --gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 01 of Aug., 2008 18:25 GMT On 8/1/08, Michael Turniansky wrote:

> > "naku le raktu cu selva'i lo ni velxai le nolraitru". > > This is actually another verse which has given translators trouble. > Here are some versions in English:

(my respective translations would be:)

> ...the adversary has no consideration for the king's loss. lo bradi cu na se vajni lo nu le nolraitru cu se xrani fo makau

> ...the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged lo bradi cu na se vamji lo nu le nolraitru cu se xrani

("worthy of", "deserving of" is one I always have trouble with.)

> ...the trouble would not be commensurate with the annoyance to the king lo rukte na mapti lo fanza be le nolraitru

> ...the enemy could not countervail the king's damage. lo bradi na se vamji lo ve xrani be le nolraitru

> ...the adversity is not equal to the loss of the king. lo raktu na dunli lo ve xrani be le nolraitru

> As you see, about the only thing they agree on is "the king" ;-)

It seems to me that "the enemy" makes no sense in the context. I assume "the adversity" is their being sold as slaves, which would not be quite as bad as being sold to be killed, and so not worth troubling the king for?

> But in any case, "le raktu" here is vague, it may be Haman, or it > may be the trouble caused by Haman. (Hebrew happens to be vague in the > same here as lojban).

The context suggests to me that it can't be Haman, or eventually it could be the Haman that would exist under the hypothetical that they were sold as slaves, but not the actual Haman under the fact that they are sold to be killed. (Of course a few lines later "le raktu" does seem to be Haman, so that confused me somewhat.)

> The "lo ni velxai le nolraitru" nowhere > suggests (to me, at any rate) that it's a property of "le raktu" (once > again it's an artifact of the X1 of vamji)

Nor to me. Only the introduction of "ce'u" does that, it makes me search for the holder of the property. As I said, "lo ni velxai le nolraitru" and "lo ni xrani le nolraitru" are hardly distinguishable to me: the extent to which the king is injured.

... > For example, when I used it in Chapter 5: > e'u su'oreda zbasu lo te dadycatra co birgutci be ga'u bei li > muno ... .ijebo .xy zbasu le te dadycatra > > When I first came across that while translating it, I noticed > something interesting — His wife's suggestion was that some > unspecified "they" build a gallows, but then it says "and Haman > built the gallows".

But just as with the king and the banquet, that doesn't necessarily mean he did it with his own hands, does it? Couldn't he have had it built? One can loosely say that he built it in that case too.

> My point? One can extract meanings or parables from the wording, > and to just trash it on the altar of lobykai would be a disservice.

Your translation, your call. :-)

I only point out how odd (and calling attention to itself) "su'oreda" sounds to me.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 01 of Aug., 2008 18:32 GMT posts: 350 On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > -8- > > {ki'u lo nu jungau fa la .esTER. zo'e lo selbri be fi xy. ce'o .ebu}: > How about "fo lo te ckini be xy bei .ebu" or "fi lo du'u makau te > ckini xy boi .ebu"? A selbri is a word or phrase, a least as normally > used if not as defined.

Is it? In any case, you are surely right that ckini is better. Forgot about it. Changed.


> > {.i le nolraitru cu vimcu lo djine po ny. zi'e noi .ny pu vimcu fi la > xaMAN. ku'o}: Is the second "vimcu" meant to be "dunda"? >

No, but it should more properly be "lebna" rather than "vimcu". He had taken the ring away from Haman (peri- or post-mortem, I couldn't say), and was now taking it off his own finger.

> {va'o ge ge ge}: Ouch! You can get the same effect and less pain with > "ge ... gige ... gige ... gi ...".

Wimp! It doesn't bother me (what? you can't read prefix notation?) but for the sake of your weakness, I'll change it. You seem to have an aversion (as shown here and in the next one, and in other places) to repeated words, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. I guess you shouldn't go see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057193/ or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032847/ or http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com


> {poi selpla la xaMAN. poi bersa be la xamdatan. noi me la .aGAG. be'o > ku'o ku'o zi'e poi se ciska}: A way to avoid that "be'o ku'o ku'o" is > "poi ge selpla ... gi se ciska ..."

Yep, that would be a good solution. However, I respectfully decline

> {lo selci'a poi ... cu na'e ka'e se natfe}: I suspect this is either > false (because every meaningful statemment has a corresponding > contradictory statement) or else it implies that lo selci'a is > nonsense (assuming some nonsense may not have a corresponding > contradictory nonsense). I think what we would want to say is that > la'e lo selci'a cannot be opposed, or something like that. But also I > think it would be interesting to understand "natfe" better, as I'm not > sure that as defined it has much practical use at all.

It really means in this context to repeal, undo. "xruti" might be a better choice, in some configuration?

> {.ijebo ciska la'e ro termi'e}: I think it's "lu'e" rahther than "la'e" there.

Changed

> {fi'o velnoi ro selje'a be tai le selyle'u pe ri fi'o velnoi ro natmi > bau le bangu pe ri}: "be bau"? But I suspect this is another termset > situation.

I agree.. this should be recast as a termset. This is what I am changing it to: ciska lu'e ro termi'e be fi la mordeXAIS. bei fi'o velnoi lei bropre bei fi'o velnoi le turni .e le viptru .e le nobli vu'o pe le selje'a po'u la xinselje'a kubi'i la kuc. vu'o noi selje'a parezemei ku'o nu'i ge fi'o velnoi ro selje'a tai le selyle'u pe ri gi nu'i ge fi'o velnoi ro natmi bau le bangu pe ri gi fi'o velnoi le bropre tai le selyle'u pe .by bau le bangu pe ri


> > {lo bropre cu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: "lo bi'unai djedi"

I guess that works. I'm never comfortable with bi'u. Okay --gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 01 of Aug., 2008 18:41 GMT posts: 350 On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> But just as with the king and the banquet, that doesn't necessarily > mean he did it with his own hands, does it? Couldn't he have had > it built? One can loosely say that he built it in that case too. >


No, and in fact, other commentators state that it means nothing more or less than that, that he had it built. But it's still a nice wording to pin stuff on.

--gejyspa


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 01 of Aug., 2008 19:34 GMT On 8/1/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > A selbri is a word or phrase, a least as normally > > used if not as defined. > > Is it?

Nothing certain can be said about Lojban grammar terminology. It's quite messy, and often the Lojban definitions disagree with the way the same words are used in English as jargon. As used in English, a selbri is a word or phrase. As used in Lojban, who knows, because it is not used very much.

> > {va'o ge ge ge}: Ouch! You can get the same effect and less pain with > > "ge ... gige ... gige ... gi ...". > > Wimp! It doesn't bother me (what? you can't read prefix notation?) > but for the sake of your weakness, I'll change it. You seem to have > an aversion (as shown here and in the next one, and in other places) > to repeated words, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.

It's not the repeated words I'm averse to, it's the embedded structures (when you need to keep track of the exact level of embedding). That "gegege" tells me "now I have to count exactly four connectands to know where all this mess ends". Language just doesn't work like that. With the ku'oku'oku'o it's even worse, as you have to backtrack and start counting poi's and noi's that have already been assimilated.

> I > guess you shouldn't go see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057193/ or > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032847/ or > http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com

No problem with those, no weird embedding.

> > {lo selci'a poi ... cu na'e ka'e se natfe}: > > It really means in this context to repeal, undo. "xruti" might be a > better choice, in some configuration?

Perhaps "nafyga'i": "x1 changes x2 into its negation x3", then "na'e ka'e se nafyga'i" makes sense.

> > {lo bropre cu bredi tu'a lotu djedi}: "lo bi'unai djedi" > > I guess that works. I'm never comfortable with bi'u. Okay

Me neither, much. "lo di'u djedi" might also work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 02 of Aug., 2008 17:18 GMT -9-

{noi masti co me la .aDAR ca lo pacimoi be lo'i djedi pe ra}: "ku'o ca"?

{.i jmaji fa lei bropre lo tcadu pe by. fe ro selje'a po ...}: "fe" or (not needed) "fi"?

{.i da noi nanmu na jdari by. ki'u lo nu terpa lo bropre fa ro selnai}: If the fear is the reason for not resisting, it should be "na'e".

{ro nobli joi ... joi zukte be tu'a lo gunka bei seka'i le nolraitru be'o vu'o goi ko'a}: don't need "vu'o" for a single sumti. What's "zukte be tu'a lo gunka"?

{.ijebo tu'a le ka my. misno cu selbe'i fi ro selje'a}: Unless it's really important to talk about "carrying a property" here, I would go with something like "lo nu my misno cu preja ro selje'a".

{ve jungau fa le ni selcatra}: If "le ni selcatra" is meant to be the number of people killed, I think you need something like "lo se klani be lo se catra", or "te jungau fa lo du'u xokau da se catra".

{jmaji ji'a ca le pavomoi be lo'i djedi}: "ca le ji'a"?

{catra lo xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o kilto}: ?

{cu jai galfi le pavomoi be lo'i djedi pe le masti no'u la .aDAR. lo ka gleki kei je balsai je sladei je nu benji lo terfai fa ro prenu lo drata}: "balsai", "sladei" and "nu benji ..." are all events, I think it should be "nu gleki" to match the rest. The month Adar should be "po'u", here and elsewhere.

{ciska la'e lo ze'u fasnu}: "lu'e"

{gi'e mrilu lo xatra ro bropre poi zvati ro selje'a}: "lo ro bropre poi zvati lo ro selje'a", otherwise each bropre has to be in every selje'a.

{lo nu galfi (...) di'i ro nanca}: To me that says that it is changed at regular intervals within each year. "di'i lo ro nanca" would say that it is changed regularly in the period that encompasses all years, (and presumably though not explicitly at one-year intevals).

{sepa'a le djedi noi (...) .e le masti noi ...}: Both "poi"? I don't really understand what exactly is parallel to that day and month though.

{la bropre}: "le"?

{loi djedi co balsai je kamgei je nu ro prenu cu benji}: I'd prefer "nungei", as above.

{ciska (...) le ka vlipa}: "tu'a" and "kei"?

{lamordeXAIS. no'u le bropre kujo'u la .esTER.}: "be'o" instead of "ku"?

-10-

{paunai xu se ciska fi le velvei}: "xu se ciska" or "xu na se ciska"?


mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Mon 04 of Aug., 2008 15:36 GMT posts: 350 On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > -9- > > {noi masti co me la .aDAR ca lo pacimoi be lo'i djedi pe ra}: "ku'o ca"? >

If you are asking if I missed a "ku'o" after aDAR, you are correct.

> {.i jmaji fa lei bropre lo tcadu pe by. fe ro selje'a po ...}: "fe" or > (not needed) "fi"? >

I (and CLL) disagree with the way that jbofi'e (and apparently you?) interpret "ko'a broda ko'e fe ko'i" The CLL explicitly states in Chapter 9, ex. 3.9 that this is "fa ko'a broda fe ko'e fe ko'i" and not "fa ko'a broda fi ko'e fi ko'i" Just as you object to having to have the hearer/reader explicitly hold levels of nesting in their mind (depstie the fact that the grammar allows it), so too the hearer/reader cannot be expected to know that future (and as yet unuttered) sumti will change the place of untagged sumti that have already been processed, hence the rule as it is exists.

> {..i jmaji fa lei bropre lo tcadu pe by. fe ro selje'a po le nolraitru no'u la .axacyveROC. tezu'e lo pe'a nu punji lo xance lo djica be lo nu xrani by}: If the fear is the reason for not resisting, it should be > "na'e". >

This confused me no end, until I realized you pasted the wrong setence. You meant ".i da noi nanmu na jdari by. ki'u lo nu terpa lo bropre fa ro selnai". I can only do that if I change the da to "roda", because otherwise (with na'e) it would mean that there only existed one man who didn't withstand them, rather than no man withstood them. I'd rather keep it as is, but change the "ki'u lo nu" to .iki'ubo .

> {ro nobli joi ... joi zukte be tu'a lo gunka bei seka'i le nolraitru > be'o vu'o goi ko'a}: don't need "vu'o" for a single sumti. What's > "zukte be tu'a lo gunka"?

It's not single sumti, it's a compound sumti. The "goi ko'a" applies to applies to to all of them (the nobles, governors, vice-governors, and the "doers of work that was for the king" (and no, I don't why the Hebrew doesn't just say "workers for the king").

> {.ijebo tu'a le ka my. misno cu selbe'i fi ro selje'a}: Unless it's > really important to talk about "carrying a property" here, I would go > with something like "lo nu my misno cu preja ro selje'a".

It's not selbei, but selbe'i (benji, not bevri). (Word of) his fame was transmitted.

> > {ve jungau fa le ni selcatra}: If "le ni selcatra" is meant to be the > number of people killed, I think you need something like "lo se klani > be lo se catra", or "te jungau fa lo du'u xokau da se catra". >

You are right. As it stands, it would be the amount of being killed, basically. Changed to ".i ca le djedi pe le nu go'i cu ve jungau fa lo selylai be lo selcatra be sedi'o la cucan. no'u le raltca le nolraitru".

> {jmaji ji'a ca le pavomoi be lo'i djedi}: "ca le ji'a"?

Agreed.

> > {catra lo xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o kilto}: ? > Not sure if you are just asking for a translation here? "killing those that hated them, in a quantity of (5+70) thousand"

zemuki'o might be an acceptable translation, if that's the part that bugs you?


> {cu jai galfi le pavomoi be lo'i djedi pe le masti no'u la .aDAR. lo > ka gleki kei je balsai je sladei je nu benji lo terfai fa ro prenu lo > drata}: "balsai", "sladei" and "nu benji ..." are all events, I think > it should be "nu gleki" to match the rest. The month Adar should be > "po'u", here and elsewhere. >

I have no problem with changing the ka gleki to nu gleki. I'm not 100% sure on no'u vs. po'u issue. We are merely giving another way of identifying the 12th month. "The 12th month" would be of and by itself a unique identifier. Telling you its name is simply incidental.

> {ciska la'e lo ze'u fasnu}: "lu'e"

okay

> > {gi'e mrilu lo xatra ro bropre poi zvati ro selje'a}: "lo ro bropre > poi zvati lo ro selje'a", otherwise each bropre has to be in every > selje'a. >

No problem

> {lo nu galfi (...) di'i ro nanca}: To me that says that it is changed > at regular intervals within each year. "di'i lo ro nanca" would say > that it is changed regularly in the period that encompasses all years, > (and presumably though not explicitly at one-year intevals). >

What would (in your estimation) di'i pa nanca mean? Or even di'i ro nanca be li pa? Would any of these (or others) come closer to "yearly, every year"? (I have a bit of leeway in the translation here, as the Hebrew literally is "In all year and year" which means "in every year")

> {sepa'a le djedi noi (...) .e le masti noi ...}: Both "poi"? I don't > really understand what exactly is parallel to that day and month > though. >

Agree on "poi"'s. And yes, we know you are very uncomfortable with sepa'a. ;-) Really, in this case, "tu'a"s are probably required (what do you think?), because we talking about celebrating them in a way parallel _to the celebration of_ the original days and month when the Jews rested, etc. (the tepa'a here being the year they take place).

> {la bropre}: "le"?

Yes.

> > {loi djedi co balsai je kamgei je nu ro prenu cu benji}: I'd prefer > "nungei", as above. >

Changed.


> {ciska (...) le ka vlipa}: "tu'a" and "kei"?

"tu'a le ka vlipa kei"? Yes, I agree..

> > {lamordeXAIS. no'u le bropre kujo'u la .esTER.}: "be'o" instead of "ku"? >


And surely, you meant "ge'u" not "be'o" (closes of a no'u)? Changed to ge'u.


> -10- > > {paunai xu se ciska fi le velvei}: "xu se ciska" or "xu na se ciska"?


I wondered if that would work the same way in lojban? I wondered if that might not imply that it in fact, it wasn't written there. If you think it's fine with na, please confirm.


I probably said this before, but now that you are at the end, let me publicly thank you for going through this translation. The fact that you have done so (all the way through to the bitter end) means that you, a jbocre, have respect for my efforts. I got no such response to my previous works (except from Andrew P.) so it really means a lot to me, that I have passed some sort of milestone of acceptance in the lojbanic community. Thanks, Xorxes (and to the others who have contributed to this thread).

--gejyspa

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 04 of Aug., 2008 18:43 GMT On 8/4/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > {.i jmaji fa lei bropre lo tcadu pe by. fe ro selje'a po ...}: "fe" or > > (not needed) "fi"?

I think my comment was too cryptic there.

I meant, shouldn't that "fe" be"fi" (and so not actually needed)? In other words, doesn't "ro selje'a po ..." go in the x3 of "jmaji", rather than the x2 which already has "lo tcadu"? Did they gather in their cities _from_ all provices, or did they gather in their cities and gather in all provinces?


> > {ro nobli joi ... joi zukte be tu'a lo gunka bei seka'i le nolraitru > > be'o vu'o goi ko'a}: don't need "vu'o" for a single sumti. What's > > "zukte be tu'a lo gunka"? > > It's not single sumti, it's a compound sumti. The "goi ko'a" > applies to applies to to all of them (the nobles, governors, > vice-governors, and the "doers of work that was for the king" (and no, > I don't why the Hebrew doesn't just say "workers for the king").

"ro broda joi brode joi brodi joi brodo joi brodu" is a single sumti. The "joi"s are connecting tanru units, not different sumti.

Shouldn't it be "joi zukte be lo se gunka be se va'u le nolraitru"? (Or even just "joi gunka be se va'u le nolraitru".) At least I find "zukte tu'a lo gunka" very obscure.


> > {.ijebo tu'a le ka my. misno cu selbe'i fi ro selje'a}: Unless it's > > really important to talk about "carrying a property" here, I would go > > with something like "lo nu my misno cu preja ro selje'a". > > It's not selbei, but selbe'i (benji, not bevri). (Word of) his > fame was transmitted.

Ah, so the property {lo ka my misno ce'u} is transferred to (the inhabitants of) every province. OK.

> > {catra lo xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o kilto}: ? > > > Not sure if you are just asking for a translation here? > "killing those that hated them, in a quantity of (5+70) thousand" > > zemuki'o might be an acceptable translation, if that's the part that bugs you?

I got the su'i part, but what I couldn't fully make sense of is the seltau "xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o" as a modifier of "kilto": (hater of them in quantity 75) type of thousand. I guessed what was intended, but not how to get there.

> > {le pavomoi be lo'i djedi pe le masti no'u la .aDAR.} > > I'm not > 100% sure on no'u vs. po'u issue. We are merely giving another way > of identifying the 12th month. "The 12th month" would be of and by > itself a unique identifier. Telling you its name is simply > incidental.

But it's "(the 12th day of) the month", not "of the 12th month". If you leave "no'u la adar" out, how do we know which month you have in mind?

> What would (in your estimation) di'i pa nanca mean?

"On a regular basis during one year."

> Or even di'i ro nanca be li pa?

"On a regular basis during each year."

> Would any of these (or others) come closer to > "yearly, every year"?

I would say "ca ro nanca" for "every year".


> > {sepa'a le djedi noi (...) .e le masti noi ...}: Both "poi"? I don't > > really understand what exactly is parallel to that day and month > > though. > > > > Agree on "poi"'s. And yes, we know you are very uncomfortable with > sepa'a. ;-) Really, in this case, "tu'a"s are probably required > (what do you think?), because we talking about celebrating them in a > way parallel _to the celebration of_ the original days and month when > the Jews rested, etc. (the tepa'a here being the year they take > place).

With "tu'a", OK, though I'd use "tai" rather than "pa'a".


> > {paunai xu se ciska fi le velvei}: "xu se ciska" or "xu na se ciska"? > > I wondered if that would work the same way in lojban? I wondered if > that might not imply that it in fact, it wasn't written there. If you > think it's fine with na, please confirm.

I think "na" is required, not just fine. It's "are you going to deny that it is written ...?", and not "are you going to tell me that it is written ...?"

> I probably said this before, but now that you are at the end, let me > publicly thank you for going through this translation. The fact that > you have done so (all the way through to the bitter end) means that > you, a jbocre, have respect for my efforts. I got no such response > to my previous works (except from Andrew P.) so it really means a lot > to me, that I have passed some sort of milestone of acceptance in the > lojbanic community. Thanks, Xorxes (and to the others who have > contributed to this thread).

You're very welcome, it was very interesting. (Didn't I comment on the Bears too though? At least I think I remember doing so.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Esther

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 05 of Aug., 2008 12:56 GMT posts: 350 On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 8/4/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: >> >> > {.i jmaji fa lei bropre lo tcadu pe by. fe ro selje'a po ...}: "fe" or >> > (not needed) "fi"? > > I think my comment was too cryptic there. > > I meant, shouldn't that "fe" be"fi" (and so not actually needed)? > In other words, doesn't "ro selje'a po ..." go in the x3 of "jmaji", > rather than the x2 which already has "lo tcadu"? Did they gather in > their cities _from_ all provices, or did they gather in their cities > and gather in all provinces? > Well, the cities were in the provinces. The Hebrew is a bit in ambiguous. It could mean something like "jmaji fa lei bropre lo tcadu pe by. zi'epoi selstu ro selje'a...". In other words, in English it could mean "The Jews gathered in their cities (which were) in all the provinces" or it could mean "The Jews gathered in their cities, (and) in all the provinces" I chose to take the second meaning.

> >> > {ro nobli joi ... joi zukte be tu'a lo gunka bei seka'i le nolraitru >> > be'o vu'o goi ko'a}: don't need "vu'o" for a single sumti. What's >> > "zukte be tu'a lo gunka"? >> >> It's not single sumti, it's a compound sumti. The "goi ko'a" >> applies to applies to to all of them (the nobles, governors, >> vice-governors, and the "doers of work that was for the king" (and no, >> I don't why the Hebrew doesn't just say "workers for the king"). > > "ro broda joi brode joi brodi joi brodo joi brodu" is a single sumti. > The "joi"s are connecting tanru units, not different sumti.

Ah, good point, although as we've discovered before, the vu'o doesn't hurt. That being said, I'm gonna add in the gadri.

> > Shouldn't it be "joi zukte be lo se gunka be se va'u le nolraitru"? > (Or even just "joi gunka be se va'u le nolraitru".) At least I find > "zukte tu'a lo gunka" very obscure. >

zukte be lo se gunka is fine. I was probably just rushing because I could see the light at the end of the tunnel.

> >> > {.ijebo tu'a le ka my. misno cu selbe'i fi ro selje'a}: Unless it's >> > really important to talk about "carrying a property" here, I would go >> > with something like "lo nu my misno cu preja ro selje'a". >> >> It's not selbei, but selbe'i (benji, not bevri). (Word of) his >> fame was transmitted. > > Ah, so the property {lo ka my misno ce'u} is transferred to > (the inhabitants of) every province. OK. > >> > {catra lo xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o kilto}: ? >> > >> Not sure if you are just asking for a translation here? >> "killing those that hated them, in a quantity of (5+70) thousand" >> >> zemuki'o might be an acceptable translation, if that's the part that bugs you? > > I got the su'i part, but what I couldn't fully make sense of is the seltau > "xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o" as a modifier of "kilto": > (hater of them in quantity 75) type of thousand. I guessed what was > intended, but not how to get there. >

Ah, I see.. you are (as usual) correct. I had intended "li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o kilto" to all be the sumti of "lu'a" when it isn't, of course. I suppose I could say "catra lo xebni be vo'a bei la'u li vei mu su'i zeno ve'o pi'i paki'o" But that really doesn't sound right. I guess I'll just go with zemuki'o Anyway, shouldn't it be sela'u? Yes, it should.

>> > {le pavomoi be lo'i djedi pe le masti no'u la .aDAR.} >> >> I'm not >> 100% sure on no'u vs. po'u issue. We are merely giving another way >> of identifying the 12th month. "The 12th month" would be of and by >> itself a unique identifier. Telling you its name is simply >> incidental. > > But it's "(the 12th day of) the month", not "of the 12th month". If you > leave "no'u la adar" out, how do we know which month you have > in mind? >

Ah, that's easy! I misread what part of the story we are talking about here. (As you see, I said "12th" not "14th" which is clearly what is actually written above) In that case, I agree... po'u is correct.

>> What would (in your estimation) di'i pa nanca mean? > > "On a regular basis during one year." > >> Or even di'i ro nanca be li pa? > > "On a regular basis during each year." > >> Would any of these (or others) come closer to >> "yearly, every year"? > > I would say "ca ro nanca" for "every year". > > Oh, that's easy enough :-)


>> > {paunai xu se ciska fi le velvei}: "xu se ciska" or "xu na se ciska"? >> >> I wondered if that would work the same way in lojban? I wondered if >> that might not imply that it in fact, it wasn't written there. If you >> think it's fine with na, please confirm. > > I think "na" is required, not just fine. It's "are you going to deny that it > is written ...?", and not "are you going to tell me that it is written ...?" > >> I probably said this before, but now that you are at the end, let me >> publicly thank you for going through this translation. The fact that >> you have done so (all the way through to the bitter end) means that >> you, a jbocre, have respect for my efforts. I got no such response >> to my previous works (except from Andrew P.) so it really means a lot >> to me, that I have passed some sort of milestone of acceptance in the >> lojbanic community. Thanks, Xorxes (and to the others who have >> contributed to this thread). > > You're very welcome, it was very interesting. (Didn't I comment on > the Bears too though? At least I think I remember doing so.) >

You made two comments on the bears, one about what to call a pumpkin, and one in response to a question I asked about connectives. Since I'm sure I made more than one questionable translation, it's seems you didn't work all the way through it. Similarly with some other people. Only Andrew went over every sentence with a fine-toothed comb (in his own efforts to become fluent in lojban).

--gejyspa

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

tagged termsets

Posted by lagejyspa on Tue 20 of Oct., 2009 15:34 GMT posts: 350 Totus asked about the following at the end of chapter 3

ciska tetai piro se mi'esku be la xaMAN. bei ge le turni pe le nolraitru ge'u .e le viptru vu'o poi turni ro selje'a ku'o gi le nobli be ro natmi be'o nu'i ge tecu'u ro selje'a sepi'o lo selyle'u pe ri gi tecu'u ro natmi bau lo bangu be ri

"Shouldn't there be a {nu'u} in front of {gi}? (CLL Chapter 14, example 11..7)"

I wasn't really sure. He may very well be right. Both parse, but I'm not sure exactly the difference is semantically (and jbofi'e doesn't handle tagged termsets), so I was wondering if some kind jbocre can help us out here?