WikiDiscuss

> On 7/8/08, lagejyspa wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I think for cultures, places, etc, the/a local name is inherently preferrable.

Actually, I'm pretty okay with that, which is why I am less resistant to making "pars" in preference to "gugrperja" (after all, I used kuc). My remark was directed more to the kunrmarbli/jenmeneikre argument, which are endemic to the whole world. No one place can lay claim to them.

> For animals/plants, something based on the Linnaean species name
> is at least conventionally what has been preferred. In addition, English
> is to be especially resisted, because of its dominant place in Lojbanic
> culture. In the end it boils down to the preference of the user, of course.

Don't worry. you have now passed my last unique fu'ivla use, anyhow. (there's a repetition of Persia and Medea later)

>
> > > 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.
>
> You did say that you don't consider {dasni} quite a "word" in
> {fi'o se dasni}, but it's hard to see how {fi'o} takes away any of its
> meaning.

Personal pecadillo. I feel the whole construction makes it essentially a preposition, albeit one that probably doesn't exist in any natlang, and hence "insignificant". For example, I would consider "se klama" to be a significant word, but not fi'o se klama fe'u, since it means exactly the same as seka'a, which would be glossed in most languages simply as "to".

But, in any case:
>
> > (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"?
>
> Or {fi'o se dasni be vy le nobli nolmapku}. If the original is ambiguous,
> it might be reasonable to preserve the ambiguity though.
>

Yes, I came to that same conclusion last night. It will let some commentator later say "Oh, yes, the servants were adorned in the royal crown, because of this interesting happenstance...." So I will change it back.

> > > > > {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 ...}.
> > >
> > Ah, okay, now I understand your objection. How about I simply add the ku,
> > and move the ji'a after "sera'a"?
>
> I think in {sera'a ji'a}, {ji'a} would have to apply to {sera'a}. For example
> {bau po'onai la lojban sera'a ji'a la lojban}, "not only *in* Lojban but also
> *about* Lojban".
>
But isn't that precisely what I want? "Not only ABOUT the king, but ABOUT all the princes and people"? (In doesn't have to be a contrasting BAI, does it?). (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...)