Re: Esther
Hmmm... not sure why the "reply" button is generating an error....
Pierre:
>{kuc}: I had {itiopias}, which is wrong; it's acually Nubia, and the text should have
> a footnote explaining this.
I considered itiopias myself. But I decided that the text should reflect the geographical boundaries of the time, so I decided to keep kuc. People intereested can look it up. This document is inteded to be a lojban megilla, not a commentary on the book of Esther, and therefore no notes were included (other than the preface)
> {lo nu .abu nuntru} should be {lo nu .abu turni}.
Agreed.
> {la gugrperja}: I had {lo perso}. Where does the "j" come from? If I said {la}, I'd
> use a cmevla {pars} or {paras}.
I dislike using non-standard gismu. (The "j" comes from the English (American?) pronunciation, but I'm not wedded to it. I'd be happy with "paras", but figured I'm already making people look up kuc, so.... ;-) Besides, I don't see anything inherently wrong with "la gugrperja" it's the country that's known by the name of the "Persia country". Which may or may not be the same (in fact is not) as lo gugrperja of today.
> {lo nobli .e lo jansu}: Not knowing exactly what the Hebrew (or Persian) word
> meant, I put {partamu}.
Again, I dislike fu'ivla. Makes more problems then it solves (as I find every time I try to read one of your stories, pierre ;-)
partmim (which is certainly of Persian origin) is translated in all but one (a non-Jewish one, which translates "chiefs") of my sources as "nobles", so that's good enough for me. Rashi says it's the Persian for "governors".
> {selnolraitru}: Is this {selnobli traji turni} or what? Should it be {se nolraitru}?
It is se nolraitru, and if you prefer to render it that way, I have no objections. My understanding is that in general, sel(/ter/vel/xel)brodybrode should be undestood as "se brodybrode" in absence of -kep- or similar. And I have used it thus many times here, where I tried to use one Hebrew "brivla" -> one lojban brivla (one notable exception was for courtyard)
> {so'i djedi po'u lo pabinomei}: I suggest {lo djedi be li so'i pabino}.
While I agree that would be an equivalent translation, it would remove the Hebrew idiom, which I'm attempting to keep in all cases ("...many days, 180 days")
> {kunrmarbli}: {kunra} implies that a rock is used to obtain a metal, not as a
> building material. I used {marmoru}, and for a type-3, I'd say {rokrmarmoru}.
I disagree that "kunra" necessarily implies that. X2 in fact, may BE a metal. To me, the salient point is that kunra is mined, whereas rokci are not. I agree that either might be appropriate categories here, however, and I had considered both. I went with kunra because it seems to me that rokci in general connotes something of low value, whereas many kunra (diamonds, gold, silver, platinum, etc.) are very valuable. And I'd like to keep marbli.
> {kunrxalabastre}: I had {xunro'i}, though I'm not sure what stone I had in mind
> when I wrote it. See my comment at the end of the verse.
This stone and the next were indeed extrememly varied in how they were translated by my various sources, so I went with what was essentially an arbitrary choice.
> {jemnrneikre}: This sounds weird, being based on the English pronunciation of a
> word that's a fu'ivla in English. I had {boijmemai}, which should be {boljmemai}.
I have no particular objection to your change.
> {le risna cu gleki ki'u tu'a lo vanju}: why not {xalgleki}? And if you say {pe'a}, it
> should be next to {risna}.
a) not "xalgleki" because the Hebrew does not imply that. b) It's not just the heart that is used idiomatically, but the entire phrase "The king's heart was happy with wine"
> {selfu}: I know of one סריס who pretty certainly wasn't gantycau, namely Potiphar,
>but the ones guarding the harem most likely were. What about these?
Presumably, they were. However, the Hebrew doesn't imply it, as you correctly show with the Potiphar example. It basically means someone who is in charge of some part of a royal household. (Modern day Hebrew, on the other hand, does it use it exclusively for "eunuch").
Xorxes:
> {ca'u ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia gi lo nobli .e lo
> jansu vu'o pe lo selje'a}: Here {pe lo selje'a} will attach to the
> whole connected thing {ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia
> gi lo nobli .e lo jansu}. One way to limit it to the last two might be
> {... gi lu'o lo nobli .e lo jansu lu'u pe lo selje'a}. Another way:
> {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}.
Will it really? I assumed the "gi" would block that from happening. But now that I look at the jbofi'e output, I can see you are right. Okay, I like your second suggestion. Also, do you think ".e" would be better as "kujoi?"
> {pa balsai be ze'e lo djedi be li ze}: To me that's a banquet that
> lasts a seven-day eternity.
Yes, I know, but we've already discuess our differences on ze'e tagged sumti. To me, that means "all of a seven day period")
> {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?
No. It means that the drinking was _regulated_ by the law. In this particular case, that meant, as it says, that by law, none were compelled to drink. Here's what Rashi has to say:
according to the law-- Because there are feasts in which they coerce those seated to drink the contents of a large vessel, and some can drink it only with difficulty, but here, no one coerced anyone.
Also, other commentators state that since Jews will not touch unsealed wine that is handled or made by non-Jews (indeed, according to one famous story, this was one of the Charges Haman made against the Jews: "The Jews insult the king. For if a fly falls into their wine, they would just flick it away, and drink, but if His Majesty were to touch it, they would pour out the whole goblet), but in this case, the King assured the Jews that they wouldn't be in danger of insulting the royal personage if they refused to drink, and additoinally, he had kosher wines brought for them.
However, it does appear that I've misremembered selfla. I thought the X2 piece of flalu was like that of catni or jitro, a sphere of influence, rathar than a particular law. I'll replace it with "lo nu pinxu cu selra'a lo flalu".
> {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o
> seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1),
>the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant?
Good point. The literal Hebrew is "...to bring Vashti the Queen before the king in a royal crown". If you can figure out how to disambiguate it to Vashti without distorting the order or adding new non-cmavo (I consider fi'o seldasni fe'u to function as a single BAI, so don't consider it to be a "significant" word), I'd love to hear it.
"nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw.
> {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e
>ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la
> .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be
> in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest
> {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}.
Not that I have any objection per se, but I'm not sure what is gained by it?
Pierre:
> Jorge LlambÃas wrote:
> > Suggestions on chapter 1:
> {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?
> Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely
> {flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.
Right. See above as to how I'll handle it.
> > {lo se du'u ra klagau la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u le nolraitru fi'o
> > seldasni le nobli nolmapku}: Who wears the crown? The servants (x1),
> > the queen (x2), or the king (x3)? Isn't {nobli nolmapku} redundant?
> Vashti wear it. (Subjunctive because she refused.) So {ra klagau la vactic. pe
> fi'o seldasni le noltrumapku le nolraitru}.
Yes, but I'd like to preserve the Hebrew word order if possible (see above).
komfo,amonan: Yes I chose to use numerals to reflect the fact that they should not be considered part of the text.