Re: Translation Exercise (from ConLang)

[Julian Pardoe <jbdp@cix.compulink.co.uk>]

In-Reply-To: <199802200953.JAA10843@mail-relay.compulink.co.uk>
Goran:
> Do you really want xamgu? I suggest zanru. Clearly the two
> don't know each other; how does one know the other is good?
> And good for what?

I meant "morally good".  The "for" part of the definition of
"xamgu" does make me feel uneasy though; it makes "xamgu" sound
more like "suitable" -- Eo "tauga", not "bona".  OTOH the
definition of "zanru" that I have seems way off beam.  I'd
really have liked a word that meant "honourable" or "noble" (not
in the "nobli" sense).

As for them not knowing each other -- well, man 1 is making a
polite assumption about man 2.  (The whole style of the English
sounds rather old-fashioned.  If people were to speak like that
today they'd just sound condescending or pretentious.)

> I also think that mukti (and mu'i) includes desire in its
> definition.  It's not a mistake, but it's not necessary,
> either.  lojban sentences are too long as they are.

I really wanted some construction like *".imu'i", linking two
sentences as a kind of non-logical ".ija".  I was also worried
that "mu'i" implied desire on the part of the guy giving change.
I guess "ki'u" or *".iki'u" would have been a better choice.

Jorge:
> I'm not sure about {iesai}. To me it means something like
> "I think the same as you" but here we want something like
> "you're right". {je'u} or {ju'o} would make more sense to me.

.ie, "je'u" is probably better.

> {do na ta'e xabju vi lo gugypau} means "it is not the case
> that there is some country-part such that you habitually live
> there".  That would mean that he is always moving from place
> to place.  You should use {le gugypau} to refer to a given
> country-part.

Well, "vi lo gugypau" was a mistake.  As I understand the gerna
I've adding a new, ad hoc place to "xabju".  What I intended was
to have "this gugypau" as the x2 of "xabju"; I wanted to put
"lovi gugypau" (remembered from Loglan?) but I couldn't convince
myself that it was grammatical.  Then I got sidetracked...

I'm never too sure about "le" and "lo"!  Again, I may be
remembering too much from Loglan but I tend to understand "le X"
as "the thing I'm going to refer to as X" and end up treating
"le" as En "the" and "lo" as En "a".  (Of course in the
introduction "le ninmu" is fine for "a man" because it doesn't
matter whether he's a man or a mouse.)

To my mind, I should have said "lo sicni be..." and "lo[i] cmalu
vamji sicni" because the guy's offering a real 2-lobru'u coin in
exchange for real small change.  He doesn't want things merely
described as coins.  I'm not sure about "le/lo gugypau": in this
context a thing he's going to refer to as a country-part is
probably fine!

I'm a bit confused about how "na ta'e xabju" ends up meaning
that he has no fixed abode.

> I'd say {do certu le ka lojbo tavla}. He's an expert in being
> a speaker. {le lojbo tavla} is "the lojban speaker", but who
> would that be? Himself? "You are in relationship {certu}
> with yourself"?

.ie, I wasn't being careful enough and mistranslated "lojbanic
talking"!

> Why not {ki'e}?

Sounds fine!  It's just hard to spot the word you want in the
lists.

-- jP --