WikiDiscuss

> On 7/7/08, lagejyspa wrote:
> > 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".
>
> I would say it is inherently wrong to use the English pronunciation
> in cases like these, where there's no significant connection between
> the thing named and the English language. (Same goes for "marbli".)
>

It wasn't the phonemic value of the name that I was questioning here, but Pierre's implication that he would use only a cmevla after la.

As far as the use of fu'ivla gathered from English, as opposed to any other language — by all means, if a word is in jbovlaste, I'll use it. I've used Pierre's non-English-derived "sperlanu", for example (not in Esther!). But absent any (even quasi-) official lojbanic word, I claim that someone, somewhere, is gonna have to try to look up and/or guess what the word means, so no language of origin is inherently better than other. So it might as well be this translator's native tongue :-P This is the main reason that I really DON'T like fu'ivla in general.

> > Xorxes:
> > > Another way:
> > > {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}.
> >
> > Okay, I like your second suggestion. Also, do you think ".e"
> > would be better as "kujoi?"
>
> {ku} is not needed with the PEG grammar. I don't think the choice
> really matters in this case, I use {jo'u} for neutral between {.e}
> and {joi}.
>

I'm aware that ku is not strictly necessary, but for ease of my sanity, I've kept everything jbofi'e-parseable.

> > > {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.
>
> I'd use {fau lo nu vy dasni lo nolmapku}.
>
That's not too bad, but it introduces words ("vy", "dasni") that are not reflected in the original Hebrew. (vy, I'm willing to accept, though, as probably necessary to avoid the ambiguity, even though the ambiguity exists in the original.) How do you feel about "fau lo nu vy co'e le nobli nolmapku"?

> > "nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is
> > in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw.
>
> The Hebrew word for "crown" includes a "royal" morpheme,
> and that same morpheme is used again as a modifier?

Sorry, I didn't mean it in a mrophemic sense, but in a semantic sense. Just as the English "crown" means "a royal or imperial headdress or cap of sovereignty", and is distinct from "hat", so too does the Hebrew "keter", as distinct from "kova". So, of course any "crown" (absent metaphoric uses) is "royal", just as any "keter" is "malchut" (absent metaphoric uses). And yet, both words appear in the Hebrew.

>
> > > {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?
>
> So that {po'onai} and {ji'a} are not modifying the wrong thing. As it is,
> {po'onai} modifies {nolraitru} instead of {le nolraitru} (easy to fix
> with a {ku})
> and {ji'a} modifies {pacyzu'e} instead of its x2 argument (very hard/
> impossible to fix, given the complexity of the sumti).
>
Ah, okay, now I understand your objection. How about I simply add the ku, and move the ji'a after "sera'a"?
--gejyspa