Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri)

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la kir cusku di'e

> I'm to translate sentense "The lojban word 'valsi' is gismu" into lojban.
>
> My first attempt was: {zo valsi poi lojbo valsi cu gismu}.
>
> But back-translations seems like "'valsi', the lojban word, is gismu" -
> not exactly the same. Really "lojban word 'valsi'" seems very like to
> "plgs" and I feel it must be translated as tanru.
>
> So my second attempt was: {le lojbo valsi me zo valsi cu gismu}.
>
> And now the question: what version is right? If both, what is better and
> why? And what is the difference between them?

Both seem correct to me. Perhaps a more literal backtranslation of the first
one would be "the 'valsi' that is a Lojban word is a gismu".

> And another question: may be {noi} should be instead of {poi} in first
> example? I don't catch difference between "restrictive" and "incidental"
> in this case.

With {noi} the sentence would say: "'valsi', which happens to be a Lojban word,
is a gismu."

> The only idea I have is that {zo valsi noi lojbo valsi cu
> gismu} can be translated like "'valsi', as a lojban word, is gismu" (and
> as an Esperanto word it is verb). Does it all seems like truth?

"'valsi' as a Lojban word" is the restrictive sense, it should go with
{poi}. You are restricting yourself from all 'valsi's to only that one
which is a Lojban word.

With {noi} you are just making a comment: 'valsi' (which by the way is
a lojban word) is a gismu.

A way to decide whether you want to use {noi} or {poi} is to see what
happens if you omit the relative clause. If you omit {noi}, the claim
being made is the same, you are just omiting background information.
If you omit {poi}, you are changing the claim.

A direct direct translation of "the lojban word 'valsi' is gismu" would
be {le lojbo valsi po'u zo valsi cu gismu}.

co'o mi'e xorxes