Talk:Tiki forum archive/Forum 5/8976

Source: 2013 Tiki forum 5, thread #8976. Original authors, UTC times, post IDs, and reply-parent IDs are preserved. This is an archive, not an active article discussion.

questions about Ruth

questions about Ruth

lukebergen · 2009-12-05 12:19 UTC · Tiki post #8976

Someone mentioned Ruth on the jbovlaste list so I started reading through

it. So far I'm only up to 1:17 but I've found the following things that need correcting I think:

1) In verses 1 and 2 there are 3 occurrences of "xabji" where I think the author wanted "xabju". 2) In verse 8 where the author said {.i la na,oMIN cusku fi le be'aspe lu ...} I think they wanted {.i la na,oMIN cusku fi le be'aspe fe lu ...} 3) In verse 17 we have {.i .aicai noda poi na'e nunmorsi zo'u da tersepli mi do} I think it's going for "nothing which is not the event of death will separate mi from you". But really isn't it saying "nothing (other than death) that thing is separated from me [plus some un-defined x4 place for {do}]. In other words, doesn't {noda poi ... zo'u} take x1 which puts the next {da} in at x2 (causing {mi} to go to x3 and {do} to go to x4)?

If I find more stuff as I read through I'll just put it in this thread.

questions about Ruth

lukebergen · 2009-12-05 12:19 UTC · Tiki post #8977 · reply to Tiki post #8976

Also, 2:2 has the same issue as 2) below.

So, I'm finding Ruth to be a really good read and excellent practice for my lojban skills. How can I contribute to this project?

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luke Bergen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Someone mentioned Ruth on the jbovlaste list so I started reading through > it. So far I'm only up to 1:17 but I've found the following things that > need correcting I think: > > 1) In verses 1 and 2 there are 3 occurrences of "xabji" where I think the > author wanted "xabju". > 2) In verse 8 where the author said {.i la na,oMIN cusku fi le be'aspe lu > ...} I think they wanted {.i la na,oMIN cusku fi le be'aspe fe lu ...} > 3) In verse 17 we have {.i .aicai noda poi na'e nunmorsi zo'u da tersepli > mi do} I think it's going for "nothing which is not the event of death will > separate mi from you". But really isn't it saying "nothing (other than > death) that thing is separated from me [plus some un-defined x4 place for > {do}]. In other words, doesn't {noda poi ... zo'u} take x1 which puts the > next {da} in at x2 (causing {mi} to go to x3 and {do} to go to x4)? > > If I find more stuff as I read through I'll just put it in this thread.

>