WikiDiscuss

Sorry, I didn't realize, after having written my big response, that there was a couple of cross posts while writing the next one....
xorxes:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, lagejyspa 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}
> >
snip
>
> 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.

Just for you, I will Not MY fault that lojban requires all those unelidable terminators to make it unambiguous..

> >> {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).
>
Strictly speaking, the middle two don't refer to to the same thing as the first, either. The first is Mordechai, the middle two are the exiles that Nebuchadnezzar exiled.

> >> {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 never understood that POV. If I wanted to say, for example, that, the world is beautiful to me in the aspect of people loving animals, why can't I say "le terdi cu melbi mi lo ka loi prenu cu prami loi danlu" as the x3 doesn't directly involve the x1 at all? (Yes, you could add "tu'i ce'u" to the end, or soemthing similar, but then, you could always say that a ka with all X places filled should be understood to have an implicit "do'e ce'u" attached. In fact, didn't you state that extra Xn places mean exactly that (do'e Xn)? And since a ka without a ce'u is presumed to have the ce'u in the first available place, the implicit semantic assumptioin works.

> I also don't
> think the x2 of {stika} should be a property, because there is
> no place for the one with the property.

And yet, that's EXACTLY what the gi'uste says it must be (that, or ni) The "one with the property" is inside the ka. (Now, I will admit the possibility that stika's X1 is one with the property, but that seems way too limiting).

> I would suggest: {cnegau .ebu .e le .ebu citni'u lo ka zvati le zdani be loi
> ninmu kei lo xamgu}.
>
But since gi'uste practically explicitly states that stika is the agentive form of cenba, I'm not sure what you are getting out of it. (Actually, I do understand your reasoning. But it's only necessary if "complete ka's" aren't allowed/understood. Actually, you could also cenba as opposed to cnegau (with appropriate place ordering), shoe-horning tu'a xeges in the x4 place under the rubric of a "condition"

> >> {.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}.
>

But again, I'm not postulating he is distinguished just from other servants, but specifically from servants with the same name. It's moot now, because I changed it anyhow.

> >> {.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 case you have
> {la'e lo termi'e} as the tai, in the second case you have
> {lo nu minde} as the tai.
>

But the underlying message would be the same? She didn't tell...as she had been commanded by Mordechai?

> > (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.

Would you prefer "...sepa'a lo nu go'i ca lo nu pu se rirni my."?

>
> >> {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}.
>

Yes, I noticed that when I was experimenting, that le gerku vo'u noi blanu cu klama is perfectly grammatical. Odd, but grammatical.

> > 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?

Right. Although I think when I was researching the Hebrew in this case, it was ambiguous to me whether in fact it was supposed to be "B&T, 2 of the king's servants, who kept the door." or ""B&T, 2 of the king's servants that kept the door".