Re: Phone game: TV

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>]

Ivan comments on the Phone Game:


> >  Does it mean "(I forbid this!) You are watching TV",
> >  or "(I forbid that) you should watch TV"?
>
> The first.
>
> >  {mi cmima .au le fonxa kelci} - "I want to be a member", or "I am a
> >  member, and have wanted this"?
>
> The second.
>
> No interjection can change the meaning of the sentence _I am a member_
> to `I am not a member' or `I want to be a member'.  And attitudinals
> are just that, interjections.  They show your evaluation of the fact
> reported, but don't alter the fact that the fact is reported.

I agree entirely. [I think I have not followed this in the past, but I
endorse Ivan's opinion and intend to follow the precept henceforward.
"ko na tavla .e'anai", not "ko .e'anai tavla", for "don't speak".]

> In general, my strategy as a fonxa kelci is based on the understanding
> that the sentence(s) I get from Mark are to be translated faithfully,
> even if real world knowledge suggests that he intends something else
> than the obtained meaning, and that his additional comments must not
> be read until my own translation has gone off to Colin, or if read
> must be ignored and not allowed to influence my understanding of the text.

I too have followed this strategy (though I confess I have sometimes
allowed guesses about the English to govern the style of my translation,
but not the content).

>
> >  <...> there is something about "until" Ivan left out with "and then":
> >  -------------------------------> [sit up straight]
> >  [you're "watching" television"]
> >
> >  Sitting up straight is a *condition* for the cessation of [forbidden]
> >  watching television.
>
> Not in Mark's text.  He only said that the telly watching occurs
> before the beginning of the straight sitting.  No causal link in sight.

I agree. Pragmatically, we will probably find that we sometimes impute
causality or concession into our lojban in context, but Ivan is right
not to put it in here, as it isn't in the Lojban.

>
> >  Colin comes up with:
> >
> >  .ua doza'a cavi jundi le vidni doi citnau  .ibabo do klama gi'ebabo
> >  sraji .i'e zutse gi'e na kelci le sanmi
>
> I didn't mean "go" in "you'll go and ..." to be interpreted literally
> (as {klama}).  Is there really no such idiom in English?

Yes, of course there is, but I'm following the precept we just
discussed!

>
> >  Sylvia:
> >
> >  Hey! I see you watching TV, young man.  You will come here, sit up
 straight,
> >  and not play with your food.
>
> I didn't insist enough that the {nu zutse gi'e na kelci} was being
> disapproved of, and it already sounds as though the young man is being
> told to do it.  Damn.  Why "come here" and not "go there", though?

Sounds to me as if Sylvia has reinserted the pragmatics that you and I
carefully by-passed because they weren't there!
"klama" means "come here" just as much as "go there".

	Kolin