Re: Wallops #5 (tranche 2)

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>]

 More comments on Nick's Germanos translation (quite a bit less in the
second half)

> .i
> mi fau lenu loi se gugdrnetiopia cu claxu lo cutci cu.e'u se vencu ri gi'e
> dunda ri ra .ifaubo lo se gugdrnetiopia banai bajryjvi fi la maraton.

I have a lot of trouble interpreting .iBAIbo, so I'm not sure if this is
confusing or just whether I don't know how to read it. But I didn't get
the concessive sense of this.

> .imumai vi se cmima ro zajbrnatleta poi se gugde lo te nizyxa'u befi li
> za'ubipimuki'oki'o .ili'a le namcu no'u li bipimuki'oki'o cu curve snuti
> .i na srana lo steci gugde .i mi puzika'e cusku lu pare li'u .onai lu pamu
 li'u
> .iku'i seja'e lenu mi cusku lu bipimu li'u cu.e'u za'ubipimuki'oki'omei

"le namcu li'o cu curve snuti"? Understandable, but not precise. Really
ought to have a "lenu" in there.
".i mi puzika'e" - again I don't get a counterfactual sense. "puzipu'o"
would be better, but I suspect that "da'i" is better still.

"za'u8.5,000,000mei" - this looks like a shorthand that doesn't work.
The original context of the numeral was not an anything-mei, so
observing now that something is a something-mei does not work. what's
wrong with ".e'u li 8.5,000,000"?

>.i mi ca'a vimcu le gugdrbrito .e le gugdrdotco
. . .
"ca'a"? This is all counterfactual - I don't know whether you can use
this in that context or not.

> .iku'i mi [ji'u <lenu noda djuno [ro ba fasnu
> <pe lemi zajbrnatleta> <zi'ene[mu'u <le jaitai cikybi'o be ri beica [le nunjvi
> dinri .e lenu ra caku xalbo .e lenu caku na dukse citka ganse]>]>]>] cu.e'u
 cmima
> le somoi

I had to put all the above grouping in to be sure, but I think your
".e"'s attach to the wrong place.

                That was fun!

                        Kolin
                                        c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk