[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
so'o pinka be ledo selfanva
- To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>, Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>, Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
- Subject: so'o pinka be ledo selfanva
- From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!C.J.Fine>
- Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!C.J.Fine
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!LOJBAN>
Nick:
I very much enjoyed reading your Aesop translations, and
on the whole I think you have expressed them well. I have
a few comments to offer, some of which probably reflect
my lack of understanding.
General:
I notice you often use "noi" in cases where I would be
inclined to use tanru. eg. "lo lorxu noi xagji" as
opposed to "lo xagji lorxu". This is a perfectly valid
(and indeed more precise) form of expression - I just
wanted to point out the possibility, and also to wonder
on whether the original Greek wouldn't have used lots of
participles, giving a structure if not a sense closer to
that obtained with tanru. I notice it particularly in
contrast to your very elegant solution to the place
structures of "bacru" and "tavla": "lenu tavla be da be'o
bacru de" (though I can't help wondering if the places
are wrong, if you need to do this).
I wonder about your use of the gadri "le", "lo" and
"lei". What struck me particularly is the variation
between your titles and your text.
"me le lorxu .e lei vanyjba
.i lo lorxu..."
This certainly reflects English usage (if you treat "le"
as "the" and "lo" as "a", as we often do for short) -
though you do not in fact use "the" in your English
titles. But I wonder if it is a good pattern. It seems to
me, that you do have a specific fox in mind, and "le"
would be more appropriate in the text of the fable.
This is even clearer with the crab:
"... lo canldrdanlrkandre le mamta cu se tavla ..."
I find it difficult to make sense of the lo/le
distinction here, unless it really does reflect the
indefinite/(relatively) definite distinction in English.
Again, your use of "lei" suggests to me that you are
more or less using it for a plural: "the ants" are surely
some specific ants ("le manti"), not some part of the
mass of all ants ("lei manti"). Similarly "loi vanyjba";
and in your morals at the end of the fables, I would
prefer "lo pajni be lo prenu be'o cusku" to "lei ...
lei...".
"lego'i" - strictly, this means "the individual(s)
described as satisfying the previous bridi", so for
example in "Fox and grapes" it doesn't mean "the fox" but
"the wanter to get them and not able to get". In general
these will be extensionally the same, but I'm a little
dubious about this as a general technique.
More specific comments:
Fox and grapes:
"vimcu vo'a"? "subtracted himself from ..."? I think
this is a poor choice of brivla. (I'm only guessing
"vo'a" means self - I still haven't found my cmaste).
I wonder about your alternation of "naka'e cpacu" and
"na'eka'e xagri'a" - I can make sense of both, and I'm
not yet used to negation, so there may be a good reason
for the difference that I'm missing.
Crab and mother: I thought that the modified gismu on the
front of a le'avla was just to give a general semantic
area - it seems unwieldy and contrary to the spirit of
le'avla to shove two of them on there. I agree with you
about ablatives.
"mosra" not "morsa".
Crow and fox:
I think you missed out an abstractor "noi ba'o kavbu lo
rectu"
"...noda fau ... turni roda ..." - I'm not quite sure
what it means to use the same variable differently
quantified in the same sentence, but I have a strong
feeling that it is clearer to use different ones.
Tortoise and Hare:
Surely you mean "resprtestudine" don't you? (zo'o)
"na'e gunka jundi" - "non-workingly attended"? I would
not use "gunka" here. I would prefer "kazvajni",
"terzukte", "selmukti", or even "fuzme" - or just "na'e
jundi".
"le se cusku cu xusra ve cusku ledu'u..." "the thing-
expressed assertingly-is-a-form-of-expression of the-
statement-that" (unless the place structure of "cusku"
has changed since my list). I'm not entirely sure what
this means, because I'm not certain of the meanings of
the places. Is it appropriate for the x2 to be "lu ...
li'u" or "la'elu ... li'u"?
Either way, a statement of the form "le se broda cu ve
broda" is likely to be a little suspect - I'm sure there
are cases where it makes sense, because it happens that
the same kind of thing can fill both places (though I
can't think of any off-hand) but the x2 and x4 of "cusku"
are surely very different animals?
It appears to me that EITHER
"lo se cusku" is a piece of text, utterance etc, in
which case "cusku" has no place to express the meaning,
and you'll have to use something like "le se cusku cu
xusra ledu'u ..."
OR "lo se cusku" is a meaning, content etc, in which
case you probably want "le ve cusku cu xusra ve cusku
ledu'u..." (and all the people who have written things
like "la fred. cu cusku lu ..." are wrong).
I'm a little uncertain about comparing ("vlimau") a "se
ckaji" and a "nu trocu" - aren't they rather different
kinds of thing? Similarly, the hare neglects the race
because of his 'ka sutra', while the tortoise is aware of
his 'ni masno' - while you can certainly make a case for
these different abstractors, I think you might improve
the parallel (zu'u) by using the same one both sides.
I hope you will take these remarks constructively, as
they are intended.
Colin (c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk)