[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

More response to Colin Fine on dialog translation

I posted something on metalinguistic comments in quotation the other
day.  I just looked back at what Colin was trying to translate - a
colloquial dialogue - to see whether my suggestion would solve his
problem.  I'm not so sure.  It appears that he is looking for something
brief for short, rapid-fire exchanges; he isn't apparently trying for
the metalinguistic commentary that we commonly associate with
English-language conversational narrative.  I'm not sure any more that
I know his goal:
- I first note that, as I noted in my last comment, in the printed form
Colin found it necessary to record his dialog with a hyphen before each
exchange and columnizing the exchanges:

>Another, also unfinished composition - I had the idea of experimenting
>with colloquial dialogue.  Hence:
>
>A: ju'icoi .ritcyd      B: uema .i .ua .i coicu'i
>- klama ma              - zarci
>- ua .i te vecnu ma     - vrici
>- ua .i zukte ma ba     - aicu'i .i le skina .auru'e
>- ma se jarco           - ju'ocu'i
>- ua .i e'apei kansa    - cu'i
>- ai kansa
>   ni'o ju'i .ritcyd
>   semu'ima do na'e jikca
>                        - lu semu'ima li'u .ue .o'onai .i
>                                semu'iku do mabla mi
>- ue .i cana go'i .uanai
>                        - ca la pudjed .i calenu do zutse co
>                                nenri le gusta .i caleti'enu do
>                                bacru ledu'u mi na'e jundi gunka

Because Loglan/Lojban is audiovisually isomorphic, that visual
representation MUST be represented somehow in speech.  That means may be
the rather more long winded metalinguistic comments I mentioned in my
last, but I personally would say that simple ".i lu...li'u" around each
exchange is far more efficient for this type of dialog.  The A: and B:
alternation could be expressed roughly as:

A cusku lu ... li'u .i B cusku lu ... li'u
sei le remei cu simxu se lidne cusku be di'e    (the "be" is required)
(The two mutually-followingly say the following:)
.ilu ...li'u             .ilu ...li'u ...

In this case the simplest solution seems best.

As to Colin's other questions, this sentence is an example of the English
form of the desired topicalization.

.i le la kolin. drata preti zo'u:  dei mupli le lojbo ke simsa be di'u
noi glico be'o tarmi
[As to the Colin other questions [end prenex]: this sentence exemplifies the
Lojbanic similar-to-the preceding-which-is-English form.]

Use prenexes with a definite (as opposed to logically quantified
variable - its JCB-designed function) sumti value for Japanese-style
topicalization.

Rhetorical use of questions can be marked with kau, as discussed in
JL15, or perhaps with peinai.  I guess this would be suitable for
translating an English dialog rather literally.  I've never noticed it
actually happen in Lojban conversation - but then we aren't speaking at
colloquial speeds.  Colin's try was excellent - he did quite well and
understandably (I could read and understand without translation).  I'll
present an edited version incorporating the above responses where I
think they fit, fixing his minor errors and changing a couple of minor
points where I think a Lojban conversation would less exactly match its
English equivalent.  The text parallels Colin's original fairly closely
- the English translation is virtually identical.

A cusku
lu ju'icoi. ritcyd. li'u        .i B cusku
                                lu .ue.uanai .ua coicu'i li'u
sei le remei cu simxu se lidne cusku be di'e
.ilu klama ma li'u              .ilu loi zarci li'u
.ilu .ua .i te vecnu ma li'u    .ilu loi vrici li'u
.ilu .i ba zukte ma li'u        .ilu .aicu'i tu'a loi skina .auru'e li'u
.ilu .ua .i ma selja'o li'u     .ilu na djuno li'u
.ilu .a'u .e'apei kansa li'u    .ilu cu'i li'u
.ilu .ai kansa
  ni'o .i'anai doi ritcyd.
  semu'i ma do naljikca li'u    .ilu makau do pu malckasu mi li'u
.ilu .uecai .ianaicai ca ma
  go'i li'u                     .ilu ca le prulamdei ne'i le gusta do cusku
                                   ti'e ledu'u mi nalju'i gunka

Intended translation:

A:Hey, Richard!                 B:What? Oh, hi.
(The two mutually-followingly say the following:)
-Where you going?               - Store.
-Oh. What for?                  - Stuff.
-What are you doing afterwards? - Dunno. Movie, perhaps.
-Oh. What's on?                 - Dunno.
-Oh. Can I come?                - Whatever.
-Well I will.
-Look Richard, why are you
        being so antisocial?    - Why? You mocked me!
-What? You gotta be kidding.
 When?                          - Yesterday, in the cafe, You said,
                                   so I heard, that I was careless at work.

I tried to use a bit more variety in A's attitudinal response to B.  Using
.ua as a simple acknowledgement of information seems inappropriate. je'e
(acknowledgement vocative) is better.  But looking at the attitudinals
gives another response:  In reality, this is not how such a conversation
would go in Lojban.  Richard would have used rather more expressive
attitudinals that would have either cut off the conversation early, or
gotten to the crux of the matter:

coiro'anai [Greetings, I'm feeling antisocial.] in response to the
opening would have been direct.  Other attitudinals that might have been
used by Richard include le'ocu'i (passive) in response to A's repeated
questioning.  .o'enai (distance) and .o'ocu'i (mere tolerance) and
.oi.i'anai (complaint+blame).  A could have asked using attitudinal
questions .a'unaipei (Do you blame me?).  His repeated asking questions
- (I ain't gonna let you off the conversation that easily) could include
le'oro'a (socially aggressive) and .a'a.io.i'ipei (Attention+respect+lay
it on me, bub!) would have gotten to the heart of the matter.  None of
this distracting stuff about shopping and movies.  I'd be interested in
seeing someone write up this dialog with a minimum of non-attitudinals
might be used.  Probably the words "do", "ca prulamdei" and "ne'i le
gusta" would be needed for the explanation, but the entire rest of the
communicative exchange could (and probably should) take place at the
attitudinal level.  Care to try, Colin?  Others?  I could use such an
example for the attitudinal paper revision that I'll shortly be working
on.

One last item on audiovisual isomorphism.  Nick had suggested mu'o to
end each exchange.  But this fails the test of metalinguisticity.  The
vocatives are intended for people to USE, not to make printed
conversations clear.  Using them at the end of each exchange suggests
that the people actually said them, which is most unlikely in a
colloquial conversation.

The word "sa'a" may be used to mark a word or phrase as not really part
of the quoted text when this would be ambiguous (se'isa'a instead of
just plain sei is probably most correct for an quote-embedded
metalinguistic, to be sure).  Thus, to use Nick's suggestion, you would
need mu'osa'a at the end of each exchange.  But that offers no more
clarity or brevity than the more clear "lu ...li'u".

lojbab