WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Re: Esther

posts: 350

> Comments on chapter 2:
>
> {nolratiru}: typo

Twice, no less... wonder how that slipped through?


> {ji'o la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru zi'e poi bandu le ninmu
> ku'o}: Is {no'u} meant to be {po'u}? Otherwise, why is it {la vacTIC.
> po'u le noltruni'u} but {la xeGES. no'u lo selfu be le nolraitru}?
> Also, here and elsewhere, {no'u/po'u lo} could be replaced by just
> {noi/poi}.

Yes, I did vacillate somewhat between using noi/poi vs. no'u/po'u. Indeed, in several places I literally changed it back and forth several times. My feelings are in general, with Hebrew phrases like "melex axacyveroc" (King Ahasuerus), as a title, "no'u" conveyed it best. Conversely, when the Hebrew uses "axacyveroc hamelex" (Ahasuerus, the king), "po'u" conveys the sense of _this_ Ahasuerus, as opposed to the garbage man of the same name. But I haven't been consistent. As to poi vs. po'u, I basically use "poi" iff the Hebrew "asher" (which, that) appears.

Here, it's "Hegeh, the servant of the king, (a) guardian of the women." As such, I'm gonna change it to "la xeGES. po'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e no'u lo bandu be le ninmu".

>
> {ni'o my. goi lo nanmu co xebro cu zvati la cucan. po'u le raltca gi'e
> selcme zo mordeXAIS. gi'e bersa la .ia,IR. poi bersa la ciMIS poi
> bersa la kic. poi se lanzu la beniamin. ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e}: Ouch! I
> would replace {ku'o ku'o ku'o gi'e} with {.ije my}
>

So would I, had I been the guy writing this in lojban (as did the the writers of Septuagint). Unfortunately, we are connected with "who...." (asher). Verse 6 is really nothing more than a relative clause that refers all the way back to "a Jew", not a separate sentence at all. But there is no way in lojban (or is there?) to hook a relative clause back to a subject that has had an intervening bridi, so I took a bit of translator's license and made it a gi'e. Here's the literal translation of the Hebrew into English:

There was a Jew in Shushan the capital, and his name was Mordecai, son of Yair, son of Shimi, son of Kish, a man of Benjamin, who {Mordecai} had been exiled from Jerusalem with the exiles that had been exiled with Jeconiah, king of Judah which had been exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

> {pu se livbai ... fa lo se livbai poi se livbai}: Three times, in
> case it wasn't clear what happened to him? :-)
>

Four times, actually, the same as the Hebrew (see above). I'm guessing this literary device is because the exile is such a culture-defining event for us, Mordecai/Esther (the putative authros of the book) wanted to be emphasize it.

> {.ije le citni'u cu melbi fi lo ka velski ce'u gi'e pluka fi lo ka
> selvi'a}: Would that be {kei gi'e}?

Yes. Thanks

> Why {ka velski ce'u} rather than
> {ka skicu ce'u} or {ka ce'u selski}?

Or maybe even ka jvinu would be better?

The Hebrew "toar" is a hard word to pin down. It means description, but it also means (as here) appearance. So I was trying to convey "a description of her" with the description having the higher precedence, with the x3 and x4 of velski being zi'o-ed, for all we care.

> {cu lebna la .esTER. seka'a le zdani be le nolraitru}: I would suggest
> {bevri} instead of {lebna seka'a}.

This is another place I vacillated, and still might change. The Hebrew used is "vatelikach", was taken. The Hebrew implies the same as lebna, to dispossess. She wasn't simply "brought" (Hebrew hivei). Some suddenness/force seems to be implied here, so I tried to keep that mood.

> {.ije xy. sutra lo nu fe lo .ebu se likpu'i .e lo .ebu fatri cu dunda
> .ebu}: Should be {te fatri}?

Yes, you are right. Thanks

>
> {fe ze citni'u co mapti be fi lo ka se dunda fi .ebu ra'i le zdani be
> le nolraitru kei kei gi'e}: Starting a new sentence would be kind
> here.
>

Yes, you are right, and it wouldn't be inconsistent with what I've done elsewhere.

> {jai stika lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani be loi
> ninmu kei lo xamgu}: Not sure what {stika} means here.

The Hebrew literally means "He changed her and her maidens for the good, the house of the women". This has caused problems for translators, but most agree there is an elision here, and that it means something like "He switched them to a better place in the house of the women." So in my lojban, he modified their property of their being in the house of woman by a beneficial amount.

>
> {.i na jungau fa la .esTER. fo le natmi be .ebu be'o .a le dzelanzu be
> .ebu mu'i lo nu}: {na} is probably {na'e}.
>

I have no problems with your sugg. Is that because the way I have it might imply that she could have told for some other reason?

> {.i ca lo tcika be ... loi grasu be loi grasrmoru be'o kuce'o lo
> masti ... cu klama le nolraitru}: I give up on this sentence. If my
> calculations are correct, {ce'o} is connecting grease with months.
>

Hmm.. let me recheck...
You're right. I'm missing a second be'o right after the first one. (forgot I had a subordinate be phrase) The months should be in sequence, not the months with the oil. Try it now.

> {.i ro terta'a be fi ko'a cu seldu'a fi ko'a tezu'e lo nu klakansa
> ko'a fo le zdani be loi ninmu fi le zdani be le nolraitru}: "Every
> thing that they talk about is given to them so that they are
> accompanied from the house of the women to the house of the king"?

Almost. Except the implied X1 of "lo nu klakansa..." is the same as the X1 of the main sentence, thus, "Every thing that they talked about was given to them to accompany them..." (In more vernacular English, everything they asked for was given to them to take with them.)

> {.i ca lo vanci ko'a klama .ije ca lo cerni ko'a xrukla pe'a}: What is
> figurative about {xrukla}?
>

Well, because she wasn't returned to where she was before, but to a second harem. Hence it's not a "returning" at all.

> {ji'o la caacygaz. no'u le selfu be le nolraitru zi'e po'u le bandu be
> le me'aspe}: Why {no'u ... po'u}?
>

Because it says he was the servant of the king (a mere description), the keeper of the women (a distinction from other servants of the king who might have been named Shaashgaz).

> {.i se lebna fa la .esTER. seka'a le nolraitru}: Again I suggest {bevri} here.
>

And again, I'm of two minds wink

> {.i prami fa le nolraitru la .esTER. semau da'a ninmu}: CLL
> discourages using {semau} like this.
>

Right. I'll attach it with ne, as CLL says.

> {.ije .ebu ckaji lo ka zabna .e lo ka selxe'o ma'i .abu semau da'a
> nu'ogle}: Same.

Ditto

>
> {.i le nolraitru cu zbasu lo balsai co barda}: I meant to comment
> about this in Ch.1 too. Wouldn't something like {friti} be better than
> {zbasu seva'u}? It's hard to picture the king making the banquet
> himself.

True, but yet that's what the text says.

>
> {gi'e dunda lo seldunda fi'o selmapti le nolraitru}: {dunda lo
> seldunda}? What about {dunda lo mapti be le nolraitru}?

Yeah, I know, but it says, "he gave gifts..." Again, if I was writing in lojban directly, I'd do it, but here I feel more constrained.

>
> {.i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be
> .ebu tai la'e lo termi'e be .ebu bei la mordeXAIS.}: That would
> suggest that she did tell in some other way.
>

Would that still be true if I used "i naku la .esTER. jungau fo le dzelanzu be .ebu be'o .a le natmi be .ebu itaibo termi'e .ebu la mordeXAIS."? Or would the .i stop the scope of the na? And will that erroneously change the meaning here? (I know I can change "naku la ester" to "la ester na'e" . Just exploring other avenues to preserve word order.)

> {.ijebo fe la'e lo selsku be la mordeXAIS. fa la .esTER. zukte sepa'a
> lo nu pu se rirni .my}: How is her doing what he says
> parallel to her being his daughter?

She acts according to the words of Mordechai just as she did when he was raising her.

>
> {la bigytan. .e la terec. vu'o po'u re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u
> vu'o poi bandu le vrokoi}: The second {vu'o} is ungrammatical. {zi'e}?
>

You sure it's ungrammatical? jbofi'e likes it. And it brackets differently. With zi'e, it is a descriptor of "le selfu...", whereas with vu'o, it is a descriptor of "re le selfu...". That being said, I think I do wan't zi'e here, anyhow.

--gejyspa