Esther
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>> {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.
OK, but since {gi'e} is just a variant of {.ije}, you could just as well choose
{.ije} instead of {gi'e} and save the reader much hardship.
> 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.
I suppose you could use {ku'o ku'o ku'o fa my noi ...} if you had to use a
relative clause there, but I'm not sure carrying translation
faithfulness to such
extremes is worth it. Unless I'm missing something, nothing is lost by
starting a new sentence here.
>> {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).
But the fourth refers to someone else (la iixanias).
>> {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.
It's not clear that {lo ka .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u cu zvati le zdani
be loi ninmu kei} is their property of their being in the house of
woman, or the house of woman's property of housing them, or
some other property of something else. I don't think a {ka}
without a {ce'u} place really makes much sense. I also don't
think the x2 of {stika} should be a property, because there is
no place for the one with the property. I would suggest:
{cnegau .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u lo ka zvati le zdani be loi
ninmu kei lo xamgu}.
>> {.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?
Right.
>> {.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 find it too convoluted to follow.
>> {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).
When you say that he was a servant of the king, we still don't
know which Shaashgaz you're talking about? As we dicussed before,
the nonrestrictive-restrictive order of subordinate clauses makes no
sense to me.
If the distinction is meant to be from other servants of the king,
rather than from other Saashgazes, {zi'e} should be replaced
by {be'o}.
>> {.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?
{.i} stops the scope of {na}.
> And will that erroneously change the meaning here?
It's a sightly diferent meaning. In the first cae you have
{la'e lo termi'e} as the tai, in the second case you have
{lo nu minde} as the tai.
> (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.
But the "she did when" is missing from the Lojban.
>> {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.
Ah, ok. It just doesn't do anything then, since there is no connected
sumti but just the single sumti {re le selfu pe le nolraitru ge'u}.
> 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.
With {zi'e} it's a second restrictor of {la bigytan. .e la terec.}, right?
mu'o mi' xorxes