WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Esther

posts: 324
Use this thread to discuss the Esther page.
posts: 324

Suggestions on chapter 1:

{kuc}: I had {itiopias}, which is wrong; it's acually Nubia, and the text should have a footnote explaining this.

{lo nu .abu nuntru} should be {lo nu .abu turni}.

{la gugrperja}: I had {lo perso}. Where does the "j" come from? If I said {la}, I'd use a cmevla {pars} or {paras}.

{lo nobli .e lo jansu}: Not knowing exactly what the Hebrew (or Persian) word meant, I put {partamu}.

{selnolraitru}: Is this {selnobli traji turni} or what? Should it be {se nolraitru}?

{so'i djedi po'u lo pabinomei}: I suggest {lo djedi be li so'i pabino}.

{kunrmarbli}: {kunra} implies that a rock is used to obtain a metal, not as a building material. I used {marmoru}, and for a type-3, I'd say {rokrmarmoru}.

{kunrxalabastre}: I had {xunro'i}, though I'm not sure what stone I had in mind when I wrote it. See my comment at the end of the verse.

{jemnrneikre}: This sounds weird, being based on the English pronunciation of a word that's a fu'ivla in English. I had {boijmemai}, which should be {boljmemai}.

{le risna cu gleki ki'u tu'a lo vanju}: why not {xalgleki}? And if you say {pe'a}, it should be next to {risna}.

{selfu}: I know of one סריס who pretty certainly wasn't gantycau, namely Potiphar, but the ones guarding the harem most likely were. What about these?

> Suggestions on chapter 1:

{ca'u ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia gi lo nobli .e lo
jansu vu'o pe lo selje'a}: Here {pe lo selje'a} will attach to the
whole connected thing {ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia
gi lo nobli .e lo jansu}. One way to limit it to the last two might be
{... gi lu'o lo nobli .e lo jansu lu'u pe lo selje'a}. Another way:
{... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}.

{pa balsai be ze'e lo djedi be li ze}: To me that's a banquet that
lasts a seven-day eternity.

{lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

{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?

{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 ...}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 324

On Saturday 05 July 2008 10:37:11 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > Suggestions on chapter 1:
> {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely
{flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.

> {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?

Vashti wear it. (Subjunctive because she refused.) So {ra klagau la vactic. pe
fi'o seldasni le noltrumapku le nolraitru}.

Pierre


On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
> Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely
> {flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.

Any idea why such a law was required at all? Was it customary for people
to force others to drink even if they didn't want to?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 92
Any reason to use English style chapter enumeration (e.g., "-1-") rather than the Lojbanic {no'o mo'o}? mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
posts: 350

Hmmm... not sure why the "reply" button is generating an error....

Pierre:
>{kuc}: I had {itiopias}, which is wrong; it's acually Nubia, and the text should have
> a footnote explaining this.

I considered itiopias myself. But I decided that the text should reflect the geographical boundaries of the time, so I decided to keep kuc. People intereested can look it up. This document is inteded to be a lojban megilla, not a commentary on the book of Esther, and therefore no notes were included (other than the preface)

> {lo nu .abu nuntru} should be {lo nu .abu turni}.

Agreed.

> {la gugrperja}: I had {lo perso}. Where does the "j" come from? If I said {la}, I'd
> use a cmevla {pars} or {paras}.

I dislike using non-standard gismu. (The "j" comes from the English (American?) pronunciation, but I'm not wedded to it. I'd be happy with "paras", but figured I'm already making people look up kuc, so.... ;-) 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". Which may or may not be the same (in fact is not) as lo gugrperja of today.



> {lo nobli .e lo jansu}: Not knowing exactly what the Hebrew (or Persian) word
> meant, I put {partamu}.

Again, I dislike fu'ivla. Makes more problems then it solves (as I find every time I try to read one of your stories, pierre ;-)

partmim (which is certainly of Persian origin) is translated in all but one (a non-Jewish one, which translates "chiefs") of my sources as "nobles", so that's good enough for me. Rashi says it's the Persian for "governors".

> {selnolraitru}: Is this {selnobli traji turni} or what? Should it be {se nolraitru}?

It is se nolraitru, and if you prefer to render it that way, I have no objections. My understanding is that in general, sel(/ter/vel/xel)brodybrode should be undestood as "se brodybrode" in absence of -kep- or similar. And I have used it thus many times here, where I tried to use one Hebrew "brivla" -> one lojban brivla (one notable exception was for courtyard)

> {so'i djedi po'u lo pabinomei}: I suggest {lo djedi be li so'i pabino}.

While I agree that would be an equivalent translation, it would remove the Hebrew idiom, which I'm attempting to keep in all cases ("...many days, 180 days")

> {kunrmarbli}: {kunra} implies that a rock is used to obtain a metal, not as a
> building material. I used {marmoru}, and for a type-3, I'd say {rokrmarmoru}.

I disagree that "kunra" necessarily implies that. X2 in fact, may BE a metal. To me, the salient point is that kunra is mined, whereas rokci are not. I agree that either might be appropriate categories here, however, and I had considered both. I went with kunra because it seems to me that rokci in general connotes something of low value, whereas many kunra (diamonds, gold, silver, platinum, etc.) are very valuable. And I'd like to keep marbli.

> {kunrxalabastre}: I had {xunro'i}, though I'm not sure what stone I had in mind
> when I wrote it. See my comment at the end of the verse.

This stone and the next were indeed extrememly varied in how they were translated by my various sources, so I went with what was essentially an arbitrary choice.

> {jemnrneikre}: This sounds weird, being based on the English pronunciation of a
> word that's a fu'ivla in English. I had {boijmemai}, which should be {boljmemai}.

I have no particular objection to your change.

> {le risna cu gleki ki'u tu'a lo vanju}: why not {xalgleki}? And if you say {pe'a}, it
> should be next to {risna}.

a) not "xalgleki" because the Hebrew does not imply that. b) It's not just the heart that is used idiomatically, but the entire phrase "The king's heart was happy with wine"

> {selfu}: I know of one סריס who pretty certainly wasn't gantycau, namely Potiphar,
>but the ones guarding the harem most likely were. What about these?

Presumably, they were. However, the Hebrew doesn't imply it, as you correctly show with the Potiphar example. It basically means someone who is in charge of some part of a royal household. (Modern day Hebrew, on the other hand, does it use it exclusively for "eunuch").

Xorxes:

> {ca'u ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia gi lo nobli .e lo
> jansu vu'o pe lo selje'a}: Here {pe lo selje'a} will attach to the
> whole connected thing {ge lo jenmi be la gugrperja kujoi la gugrmedia
> gi lo nobli .e lo jansu}. One way to limit it to the last two might be
> {... gi lu'o lo nobli .e lo jansu lu'u pe lo selje'a}. Another way:
> {... gi lo me lo nobli .e lo jansu me'u pe lo selje'a}.

Will it really? I assumed the "gi" would block that from happening. But now that I look at the jbofi'e output, I can see you are right. Okay, I like your second suggestion. Also, do you think ".e" would be better as "kujoi?"

> {pa balsai be ze'e lo djedi be li ze}: To me that's a banquet that
> lasts a seven-day eternity.

Yes, I know, but we've already discuess our differences on ze'e tagged sumti. To me, that means "all of a seven day period")

> {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

No. It means that the drinking was _regulated_ by the law. In this particular case, that meant, as it says, that by law, none were compelled to drink. Here's what Rashi has to say:

according to the law-- Because there are feasts in which they coerce those seated to drink the contents of a large vessel, and some can drink it only with difficulty, but here, no one coerced anyone.

Also, other commentators state that since Jews will not touch unsealed wine that is handled or made by non-Jews (indeed, according to one famous story, this was one of the Charges Haman made against the Jews: "The Jews insult the king. For if a fly falls into their wine, they would just flick it away, and drink, but if His Majesty were to touch it, they would pour out the whole goblet), but in this case, the King assured the Jews that they wouldn't be in danger of insulting the royal personage if they refused to drink, and additoinally, he had kosher wines brought for them.

However, it does appear that I've misremembered selfla. I thought the X2 piece of flalu was like that of catni or jitro, a sphere of influence, rathar than a particular law. I'll replace it with "lo nu pinxu cu selra'a lo flalu".

> {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.

"nobli nolmapku" is redundant in the same way that "royal crown" is in the Hebrew, so I don't consider that a flaw.


> {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?

Pierre:

> Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > Suggestions on chapter 1:
> {lo nu pinxe cu selfla}: Does that mean that drinking was required by law?

> Should be {lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe kei kei cu selfla}, or more concisely
> {flalu lo nu na bapli lo nu pinxe}.

Right. See above as to how I'll handle it.

> > {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?

> Vashti wear it. (Subjunctive because she refused.) So {ra klagau la vactic. pe
> fi'o seldasni le noltrumapku le nolraitru}.

Yes, but I'd like to preserve the Hebrew word order if possible (see above).

komfo,amonan: Yes I chose to use numerals to reflect the fact that they should not be considered part of the text.

On 7/7/08, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> 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".)

> 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}.

> > {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}.

> "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?

> > {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).

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 324

On Monday 07 July 2008 13:48:31 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 7/7/08, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> > "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?

No it doesn't. The Hebrew phrase is "keter malkut", where "ktr" and "mlk" are
smegi'u, and "mlk" means "king". "-ut" means "-ness" or "-ty" or "-dom"
or "kam-"

Pierre.


posts: 350

> 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

On 7/8/08, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> 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.
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.


> > 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.

> (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.


> 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.

I think the explicit redundancy in Lojban produces quite a different effect,
but there's no law against redundancy.


> > > > {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".


mu'o mi'e xorxes


Comments on chapter 2:

{nolratiru}: typo

{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}.

{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}

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

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

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

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

{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.

{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.

{.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 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.

{.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"?

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

{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}?

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

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

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

{.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.

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

{.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.

{.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?

{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}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 350

> 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...)

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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"?

No, I think you want "Not only about THE KING, but about ALL THE
PRINCES AND PEOPLE as well".

> (In doesn't have to be a contrasting BAI, does it?).

Yes, as I understand it, if you mark the BAI then you are saying
that that's "the only", "not the only", "an additional", etc. BAI that
applies.

> (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...)

"x1 does x2 to x3" is something I have needed often, yes.
{frigau} sort of works: "x1 makes x2 experience x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 92

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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"?
>
> No, I think you want "Not only about THE KING, but about ALL THE
> PRINCES AND PEOPLE as well".
>
> > (In doesn't have to be a contrasting BAI, does it?).
>
> Yes, as I understand it, if you mark the BAI then you are saying
> that that's "the only", "not the only", "an additional", etc. BAI that
> applies.
>
> > (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...)
>
> "x1 does x2 to x3" is something I have needed often, yes.
> {frigau} sort of works: "x1 makes x2 experience x3".


You can also tag with {ri'i}. I've tried to retain the Hebrew word order in
the suggestion below.

{ri'i le nolraitru po'o nai cu zukte lo palci fa la vacTIC poi noltruni'u
ku'o ri'i fu'e ji'a ro nobli e ro prenu poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la
axacyveROC poi nolraitru fu'o}

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

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

posts: 350


> > > (Ah, if only zukte had a place for a receiver of the action...)
> >
> > "x1 does x2 to x3" is something I have needed often, yes.
> > {frigau} sort of works: "x1 makes x2 experience x3".
>
>
> You can also tag with {ri'i}. I've tried to retain the Hebrew word order in
> the suggestion below.

Ah, I've never thought of that. That will probably apply many many times through this book. Thanks.
>

> {ri'i le nolraitru po'o nai cu zukte lo palci fa la vacTIC poi noltruni'u
> ku'o ri'i fu'e ji'a ro nobli e ro prenu poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la
> axacyveROC poi nolraitru fu'o}
>
An excellent suggestion, and I will use it. Question: if I were to change it to ri'inai le nolraitru po'o cu.... what does that mean? Does that mean it that it is
(not experienced) by only the king", which wouild of course be a bad thing....
--gejyspa

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


On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> Question: if I were to change it to ri'inai le nolraitru po'o cu....
> what does that mean? Does that mean it that it is
> (not experienced) by only the king", which wouild of course be a bad thing....

Right. Strictly, without {ku} it's "the one that is only king"
rather than "only the king".

mu'o mi e xorxes


posts: 84

lagejyspa wrote:

> Re: Esther
>
> Author: lagejyspa
>
>
>> {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".
>
Since there isn't that much difference in the Hebrew between the noun
and the participle (well, I mean, they're the same word), so you could
just as well say {la xeGES. noi selfu le nolraitru zi'enoi bandu le
ninmu}. I've gone with "noi" because it doesn't seem restrictive to me
("wait, WHICH Hege are we talking about...?"). Though actually {noi le
selfu be le nolraitru zi'enoi bandu le ninmu} is probably better for the
Hebrew, since the "eunuch of the King" is not a verb participle.

>> {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.
>
"To a better place in the house" makes sense literally too... "to the
good places of the house of the women".

I'm blanking on an example here, and maybe I'm just plain wrong, but
can't the verb (vayishaneha) also mean "to treat preferentially"? i.e.
he treated her and her maids preferentially, to the best the harem had
to offer.

~mark


posts: 350

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 biggrin 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".

Page: 1/5  [Next]
1  2  3  4  5