TEXT.INT: pelxi ni'ablo

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

This is something that I suddenly decided I *had* to translate. I've
classed it as "intermediate", and perhaps it is.  My comments may be more
technical, though.  Particularly, I mean to comment on the style.

========

ni'o
le tcadu poi mi jbena vi ke'a
cu se xabju le pa nanmu noi litru loi xamsi
.i (ra) te lisri fo mi'a fe le gugde co ni'ablo
.i mi'a blokla le solri gi'e zvati(?) le xamsi co crino
.i xabju ni'a le xasysfe(?) ne'i (fi'o zdani) le mi'a pelxi ni'ablo

ni'o piro mi'a se zdani le pelxi ni'ablo...

ni'o
(piro[no!]) lei pendo be mi'a cu zvati
.i so'i lei go'i(?) lamji xabju(?)
.i le zgike bende cu co'a zgizu'e(?)

ni'o
mi'a frili lifri(?)
.i ro mi'a cu te sabji piro loi sarcu
.i .ui/.i'o/.i'e tsani co blanu .i .ui/.i'o/.i'e xamsi co crino
.i .ui/.i'o/.i'e le mi'a pelxi ni'ablo

==========

OK, first of all, note that there are fairly few lujvo.  I don't know if
even the ones there really belong.  I've been thinking more and more about
my "general-purpose lujvo" stand, and like it more.  After all, lojban in a
certain sense has fewer words than, say, English (without going into scads
of on-the-fly lujvo), so why should it pretend otherwise?  If we were
translating from a language with lots of familial terms, say Hawaiian, to
English, would the text be filled with locutions like "her brother of the
opposite sex" (not a typo: there's a word for "brother" that's only used in
reference to females) and "his younger sibling of the same sex"?  No!  It
would all just be "brother" and "sister", *maybe* qualified with "older"
and "younger", if it happened to be necessary.  Similarly, if we don't have
a word in Lojban for "saw", we might invent one if it were used a lot, or
possibly describe it once and call it a {dakfu} for the most part.  Note
that I didn't completely follow that advice above.

I didn't try to make this singable, so I didn't sweat the meter.  I
translated a little freer than I usually do, thank heaven, since I usually
get so literal it's sickening.  Note the structure of the first sentence.
It keeps all the "nouns" in the same order as the original, but the grammar
is quite different (and to my mind, this one is very nice).  Note the use
of {litru} here for "sailed", where later I have {blokla}.  This is
debatable, as everything is.  It seems to me, though, that here we know the
route travelled is "(on) the sea", so "sailing" is redundant.  While
later, when "sailing up to the sun", the metaphor is lost if we just say
{klama}.  The {ra} may not be necessary in the second sentence, but it may
help just in case.  {ni'ablo} is from Nick's lujvo list; I didn't look
farther than that.  I chose {mi'a} on purpose; it certainly doesn't seem to
me that the audience is included in "we", nor is the speaker somehow
speaking for all the Submariners (as a spokesman), but seems to be talking
about himself and his fellows.  Could be {mi}, I suppose.  The {ne'i} just
before the chorus really should be {fi'o zdani}, but I'd lose the INT
status that way, I suspect.  The {co}s are really not necessary, even to
mirror the English construction, but I threw them in anyway.  Cope.

Note the translation of "live" to {xabju} in the first verse, but {se
zdani} in the chorus.  This is deliberate, and sounds right.  I don't know
about my le/lo distinctions and all...

The "no!" in brackets in the second verse is *English*, meaning that {piro}
does not belong there, though the original has "and our friends are all
aboard."  The reason is simple: the next line says "many more of them live
next door"; so they can't *all* be there!  Presumably "all aboard" is just
an emphatic term for "aboard".  {lei go'i} is probably unnecessary, and
possibly confusing.  {lamji xabju} is a questionable tanru, but maybe not
too bad.  {diklo}, perhaps?  Loses the "next door" aspect.  I translate
"band" as {zkike bende}, which seems OK, though it does imply a conductor
that may not be implied in the original.  {gunma} is another possibility.
{zgizu'e} ({zgike zukte}) for "play (music)" works for me, as they're
acting with a goal: that there be music!


{frili lifri} in the third verse isn't so hot.  Perhaps {zabna} might be
better for "living a life of ease".  The next two lines ("Every one of us
has all we need") were kind of tricky.  {ponse} is wrong for "has", and the
English implies that any one of them could supply the group!  I ellipsized
it and used {sabji}, which implies a source, but that's not too bad.  The
English could be taken to mean that the sky of blue and sea of green and so
forth comprise a list of the things needed, but I took them as
observatives.  Dunno which UI is best there; take your pick.

There you have it, something to consider.

~mark