Jingle Bells song

[gleki]

Several years ago there was an attempt to translate this song but without preserving the rhythm.

So here is my attempt.

Refrain:
.u'i lo janbe ku
tonga ca lo nu
klama gi'e nenri fe
lo sakla carce ku

First verse:
fo lo snime ku
.e lo foldi ku
fa mi klama gi'e
stodi cmila .iu

Any mistakes ?

Any suggestions for next verses ?

[Sebastian Fröjd]

.uisai mi nelci le xe fanva
I've been singing your jinglebell version all day:)

Maybe I'll try to contribute to a translation of the other verses some other day.

co'o uidai xisyjbenunsla mi'e jongausib

2011/12/23 gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/hF1UvawYC94J.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[ianek]

Very nice! I've translated some Polish songs before and I know how
much work it takes to fit it in the rhythm.

Some notes:
* shouldn't it be {te tonga} or {se janbe}? The former is easier to
fit in the rhythm.
* {sakli}, not {sakla}
* "snow and fields" fills x4 in both {klama} and {cmila} and in the
latter it makes no sense.

mu'o mi'e ianek

[gleki]

On Saturday, December 24, 2011 1:05:59 AM UTC+4, ianek wrote:

Very nice! I've translated some Polish songs before and I know how
much work it takes to fit it in the rhythm.

Some notes:
* shouldn't it be {te tonga} or {se janbe}? The former is easier to
fit in the rhythm.

I agree that in lojban the bell and the sound it emits are interconnected. But just singing {janbe lo'e} is a bit strange.

But if you have any alternative translations please post. I'll accept any precious amendment.

* {sakli}, not {sakla}

sorry 

* "snow and fields" fills x4 in both {klama} and {cmila} and in the
latter it makes no sense.

ki'esai. Then I suggest

VERSION 2

Refrain:
.u'i se janbe je
vitno ca lo nu

klama gi'e nenri fe

lo sakli carce ku

First verse:
fo lo snime ku
.e lo foldi ku

fa mi klama .ije
stodi cmila .iu

I'm afraid that each verse must begin with ni'o or .i 

Is it so ?

Any mistakes ?

Any suggestions for next verses ?

mu'o mi'e ianek

[ianek]

On 24 Gru, 12:10, gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some notes:
> > * shouldn't it be {te tonga} or {se janbe}? The former is easier to
> > fit in the rhythm.
>
> I agree that in lojban the bell and the sound it emits are interconnected.
> But just singing {janbe lo'e} is a bit strange.

What would you achieve by {lo'e} here? I don't get it.

> But if you have any alternative translations please post. I'll accept any
> precious amendment.

I was suggesting just slipping an extra {te}:

.u'i lo janbe ku

te tonga ca lo nu

as it's easier to fit than {lo se janbe}.

> I'm afraid that each verse must begin with ni'o or .i
> Is it so ?

I asked the same thing once and it seems it's accepted to drop {i}/
{ni'o} at the beginnings of song verses.
My thread: https://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_thread/thread/2dbdffb929cba23e/

> Any mistakes ?
> Any suggestions for next verses ?

{je} and its friends are deceitful. They bind all the arguments of
connected selbri (I'm not sure what happens when they have different
numbers of arguments). So when you say {janbe je vitno}, it implies
that the sound of bells and the property in which they're eternal is
the same thing, and I doubt you can pass sound as a property.

Also, I suggest changing the second half of the refrain to

u'i se salcarce fi
lo pamei xirma ku

Unless you like it less than your version, of course.

> mu'o mi'e ianek

Don't sign with my name :)

[gleki]

On Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:16:41 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:

On 24 Gru, 12:10, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some notes:
> > * shouldn't it be {te tonga} or {se janbe}? The former is easier to
> > fit in the rhythm.
>
> I agree that in lojban the bell and the sound it emits are interconnected.
> But just singing {janbe lo'e} is a bit strange.

What would you achieve by {lo'e} here? I don't get it.

I just mean that sound and bell meanings are in one gismu therefore in lojban we can do with only one word as opposed to English.

So {janbe lo'e} is {bell producing typical sound} as x2 of janbe is the sound so there is no need in tonga in such case.

 

> But if you have any alternative translations please post. I'll accept any
> precious amendment.

I was suggesting just slipping an extra {te}:

.u'i lo janbe ku
te tonga ca lo nu

as it's easier to fit than {lo se janbe}.

Yes, it is. Although it breaks the rhythm 

> I'm afraid that each verse must begin with ni'o or .i
> Is it so ?

I asked the same thing once and it seems it's accepted to drop {i}/
{ni'o} at the beginnings of song verses.
My thread: https://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_thread/thread/2dbdffb929cba23e/

> Any mistakes ?
> Any suggestions for next verses ?

{je} and its friends are deceitful. They bind all the arguments of
connected selbri (I'm not sure what happens when they have different
numbers of arguments). So when you say {janbe je vitno}, it implies
that the sound of bells and the property in which they're eternal is
the same thing, and I doubt you can pass sound as a property.

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase

7.6)   melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule

exist ?

Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?

As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

Compare

6.7)   ta blanu je zdani

And {vitno} means x1 is permanent/lasting/[eternal] in property x2 (ka) by standard x3 [time-span/expectant one].

Does x1 need to be a property ?

se janbe + vitno = being a sound produced by a bell and being permanent

What's wrong ?  

Not considering this song what is your translation of the phrase {eternal sound produced by a bell} ?

Also, I suggest changing the second half of the refrain to

u'i se salcarce fi
lo pamei xirma ku

Unless you like it less than your version, of course.

 

OK, now there are two authors. .ui. 

I'm sure there is a lot of room for improvement.

Then in your version you can change the first {u'i} to {ni'o} to avoid tautology 

[ianek]

On 24 December 2011 14:53, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:16:41 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 Gru, 12:10, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Some notes:
>> > > * shouldn't it be {te tonga} or {se janbe}? The former is easier to
>> > > fit in the rhythm.
>> >
>> > I agree that in lojban the bell and the sound it emits are
>> > interconnected.
>> > But just singing {janbe lo'e} is a bit strange.
>>
>> What would you achieve by {lo'e} here? I don't get it.
>
> I just mean that sound and bell meanings are in one gismu therefore in
> lojban we can do with only one word as opposed to English.
> So {janbe lo'e} is {bell producing typical sound} as x2 of janbe is the
> sound so there is no need in tonga in such case.

You got it wrong. {lo'e} is a gadri, in the same sema'o as {lo} and
{le}. {lo'e janbe} is a typical bell, while {janbe lo'e} is no more
grammatical than {janbe le}.
I suppose you wanted to use {zu'i}. (I haven't seen it used so far)

>> {je} and its friends are deceitful. They bind all the arguments of
>> connected selbri (I'm not sure what happens when they have different
>> numbers of arguments). So when you say {janbe je vitno}, it implies
>> that the sound of bells and the property in which they're eternal is
>> the same thing, and I doubt you can pass sound as a property.
>>
> Is it really so ?

OK, sorry, it's an open question, as I was told some time ago. But
it's weird to me.
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_thread/thread/9f7cbbf176743206

> Not considering this song what is your translation of the phrase {eternal
> sound produced by a bell} ?

I would translate it as {lo vitno sance be lo janbe} or {lo vitno se
janbe} (or cimni instead of vitno? I don't know)

>
>> Also, I suggest changing the second half of the refrain to
>>
>> u'i se salcarce fi
>> lo pamei xirma ku
>>
>> Unless you like it less than your version, of course.
>>
>
> OK, now there are two authors. .ui.
> I'm sure there is a lot of room for improvement.
> Then in your version you can change the first {u'i} to {ni'o} to avoid
> tautology

It's nice that you like it! {se salcarce} is quite a tongue twister
though, isn't it?

[Michael Turniansky]

  I would suggest that a sleigh is not a sakli carce (a slippery/slipping cart) but a [te] skiji carce.

  As to your question:

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase
7.6) melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule
exist ?
Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?
As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

   There they are part of a tanru.  You in fact have no defined arguments at all, and when you did have them, they would be the arguments for ckule, not those of melbi or cmalu.

          --gejyspa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

[gleki]

On Monday, December 26, 2011 11:07:40 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

  I would suggest that a sleigh is not a sakli carce (a slippery/slipping cart) but a [te] skiji carce.

  As to your question:

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase
7.6) melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule
exist ?
Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?
As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

   There they are part of a tanru.  You in fact have no defined arguments at all, and when you did have them, they would be the arguments for ckule, not those of melbi or cmalu.

So is it possible to say {.u'i se janbe je vitno} ?

Now I suggest more alternative translations.

.u'i se janbe je

vitno .ije nu

mi se sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma ku

.i se sakli marce

fo lo pamei xirma ku

.i mi klama fo lo

snime foldi .iu

Or:

.u'i lo janbe ku

sance ca lo nu

mi  se sakli carce fi

lo pamei xirma ku

[Michael Turniansky]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:34 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2011 11:07:40 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

  I would suggest that a sleigh is not a sakli carce (a slippery/slipping cart) but a [te] skiji carce.

  As to your question:

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase
7.6) melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule
exist ?
Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?
As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

   There they are part of a tanru.  You in fact have no defined arguments at all, and when you did have them, they would be the arguments for ckule, not those of melbi or cmalu.

So is it possible to say {.u'i se janbe je vitno} ?

  Certainly it's possible.  It means "<amusement> A bell sound-and-permanent thing!" (although why you introduced  the idea of permanence into the song, I'm not sure.  Because of "...all the way"?  If so, I'd suggest ".i ve'e janbe se / sance.ije nu" (or ve'e->"vi'i" or "ze'e")

Now I suggest more alternative translations.

.u'i se janbe je

vitno .ije nu

mi se sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma ku

 An event of  YOU being a sliding-surface type of  vehicle propelled by a single horse?  Funny, you don't look it!

.i se sakli marce

fo lo pamei xirma ku

.i mi klama fo lo 

snime foldi .iu

 I think your meter isoff on this one, although your meaning is fine

 

Or:

.u'i lo janbe ku

sance ca lo nu

mi  se sakli carce fi

lo pamei xirma ku

  Sorry, same as before.  A bell is not a sound.

  You didn't like my suggestion of sakli -> skiji?

                 --gejyspa

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/-2aQGIkx0g8J.

[gleki]

You got it wrong. {lo'e} is a gadri, in the same sema'o as {lo} and
{le}. {lo'e janbe} is a typical bell, while {janbe lo'e} is no more
grammatical than {janbe le}.
I suppose you wanted to use {zu'i}. (I haven't seen it used so far)

Oh, sorry. I was supposed to say {lo'e se janbe}

 .a'o .ei mi jundi zmadu .u'i

[gleki]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:02:18 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:34 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2011 11:07:40 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

  I would suggest that a sleigh is not a sakli carce (a slippery/slipping cart) but a [te] skiji carce.

  As to your question:

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase
7.6) melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule
exist ?
Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?
As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

   There they are part of a tanru.  You in fact have no defined arguments at all, and when you did have them, they would be the arguments for ckule, not those of melbi or cmalu.

So is it possible to say {.u'i se janbe je vitno} ?

  Certainly it's possible.  It means "<amusement> A bell sound-and-permanent thing!" (although why you introduced  the idea of permanence into the song, I'm not sure.  Because of "...all the way"?  If so, I'd suggest ".i ve'e janbe se / sance.ije nu" (or ve'e->"vi'i" or "ze'e")

May be {se janbe je renvi} ?

 

Now I suggest more alternative translations.

.u'i se janbe je

vitno .ije nu

mi se sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma ku

 An event of  YOU being a sliding-surface type of  vehicle propelled by a single horse?  Funny, you don't look it!

Oh, sorry. Let it be

.u'i se janbe je

renvi .ije mi

se ke sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma .ui

 

.i se sakli marce

fo lo pamei xirma ku

.i mi klama fo lo 

snime foldi .iu

 I think your meter isoff on this one, although your meaning is fine

 

 

Is the meter off in {snime foldi .iu} ? There are 5 syllables as in the original.

Or:

.u'i lo janbe ku

sance ca lo nu

mi  se sakli carce fi

lo pamei xirma ku

  Sorry, same as before.  A bell is not a sound.

  You didn't like my suggestion of sakli -> skiji?

I like it. I just don't know how to fit it in. .uu .u'i 

                 --gejyspa

 

To post to this group, send email to lojba...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/-2aQGIkx0g8J.

To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

VERSION 4

.u'i se janbe je

renvi .ije mi

se ke sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma .ui

se ke sakli marce

[Michael Turniansky]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:02:18 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:34 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2011 11:07:40 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

  I would suggest that a sleigh is not a sakli carce (a slippery/slipping cart) but a [te] skiji carce.

  As to your question:

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase
7.6) melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule
exist ?
Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?
As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

   There they are part of a tanru.  You in fact have no defined arguments at all, and when you did have them, they would be the arguments for ckule, not those of melbi or cmalu.

So is it possible to say {.u'i se janbe je vitno} ?

  Certainly it's possible.  It means "<amusement> A bell sound-and-permanent thing!" (although why you introduced  the idea of permanence into the song, I'm not sure.  Because of "...all the way"?  If so, I'd suggest ".i ve'e janbe se / sance.ije nu" (or ve'e->"vi'i" or "ze'e")

May be {se janbe je renvi} ?

   Survival really implies enduring some time of hardship/countering force.  If you are really married to the idea of using a brivla rather than tense, as I've suggested, and wanting to imply simply something sustained/continuous, try ranji. 

   

 

 

Now I suggest more alternative translations.

.u'i se janbe je

vitno .ije nu

mi se sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma ku

 An event of  YOU being a sliding-surface type of  vehicle propelled by a single horse?  Funny, you don't look it!

Oh, sorry. Let it be

.u'i se janbe je

renvi .ije mi

se ke sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma .ui

  Yes, the meaning of the second  sentence works better now.

 

.i se sakli marce

fo lo pamei xirma ku

.i mi klama fo lo 

snime foldi .iu

 I think your meter isoff on this one, although your meaning is fine

 

 

  

Is the meter off in {snime foldi .iu} ? There are 5 syllables as in the original.

  No, I meant in line three.  The song wants to stress the MA in "klama"

 

Or:

.u'i lo janbe ku

sance ca lo nu

mi  se sakli carce fi

lo pamei xirma ku

  Sorry, same as before.  A bell is not a sound.

  You didn't like my suggestion of sakli -> skiji?

I like it. I just don't know how to fit it in. .uu .u'i 

Ummm.. where's the problem?  Where you have the word "sakli", substitute in "skiji".  They have the exact same rhythm.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/cD3qwuddeQoJ.

[gleki]

VERSION 5

.u'i se janbe je 

ranji .ije mi 
se ke skiji marce fo 
lo pamei xirma .ui  

.i mi se sijmarce / se ke skiji marce

fo lo pamei xirma ku

.i mi klama fo lo 

snime foldi .iu

On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:17:39 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:02:18 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:34 AM, gleki <gleki...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2011 11:07:40 PM UTC+4, lincro wrote:

  I would suggest that a sleigh is not a sakli carce (a slippery/slipping cart) but a [te] skiji carce.

  As to your question:

Is it really so ? If {je} binds all arguments if selbri then how can the phrase
7.6) melbi je cmalu nixli bo ckule
exist ?
Are melbi2 and cmalu2 now the same ?
As for selbri with different number of arguments they definitely don't get extra arguments.

   There they are part of a tanru.  You in fact have no defined arguments at all, and when you did have them, they would be the arguments for ckule, not those of melbi or cmalu.

So is it possible to say {.u'i se janbe je vitno} ?

  Certainly it's possible.  It means "<amusement> A bell sound-and-permanent thing!" (although why you introduced  the idea of permanence into the song, I'm not sure.  Because of "...all the way"?  If so, I'd suggest ".i ve'e janbe se / sance.ije nu" (or ve'e->"vi'i" or "ze'e")

May be {se janbe je renvi} ?

   Survival really implies enduring some time of hardship/countering force.  If you are really married to the idea of using a brivla rather than tense, as I've suggested, and wanting to imply simply something sustained/continuous, try ranji. 

   

I don't prefer any specific ideas here. If you can fit into the rhythm please post your versions.

I'm sure we should keep several translations to please everybody.

 

 

 

Now I suggest more alternative translations.

.u'i se janbe je

vitno .ije nu

mi se sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma ku

 An event of  YOU being a sliding-surface type of  vehicle propelled by a single horse?  Funny, you don't look it!

Oh, sorry. Let it be

.u'i se janbe je

renvi .ije mi

se ke sakli marce fo

lo pamei xirma .ui

  Yes, the meaning of the second  sentence works better now.

 

.i se sakli marce

fo lo pamei xirma ku

.i mi klama fo lo 

snime foldi .iu

 I think your meter isoff on this one, although your meaning is fine

 

 

  

Is the meter off in {snime foldi .iu} ? There are 5 syllables as in the original.

  No, I meant in line three.  The song wants to stress the MA in "klama"

 

In the original there is

{Though the fields we go} which matches {.i mi klama fo lo}

 

                 --gejyspa

 

To post to this group, send email to lojb...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/-2aQGIkx0g8J.

To post to this group, send email to lojba...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Michael Turniansky]

But it doesn't match.  (And FWIW it's "O'er", not "Through", but that's neither here nor there.):

 THROUGH(/OE'R) the FIELDS we GO  (XxXxX) (5 syl)

 i mi KLA-ma fo LO (xxXxxX) (6 syl)

 Now, I am assuming you are trying to stress ".i" which is a bit unnatural, I think, for songs in lojban.  And you can certainly cheat it in as a throwaway unstressed syllable at the beginning of the line, since it's followed by a stress. But even if you DO stress the ".i", you are trying to stick two unstressed syllables in the space of one, which really doesn't work. (although you could be intending to stress "fo", not "lo" as I have it here, in addition to the ".i".  That would be better, but if that's the case, then you should move to the "lo" to the next line.

.

[gleki]

Actually I perceived snow as [snou] and go as [gou].

 

 Now, I am assuming you are trying to stress ".i" which is a bit unnatural, I think, for songs in lojban.  And you can certainly cheat it in as a throwaway unstressed syllable at the beginning of the line, since it's followed by a stress. But even if you DO stress the ".i", you are trying to stick two unstressed syllables in the space of one, which really doesn't work. (although you could be intending to stress "fo", not "lo" as I have it here, in addition to the ".i".  That would be better, but if that's the case, then you should move to the "lo" to the next line.

.

If we can't stress single-syllable cmavo in lojban that's too bad. Many songs require stress on the last syllable in a fragment. It wouldn't be easy to preserve the rhythm in such cases.

 

 

                 --gejyspa

 

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/-2aQGIkx0g8J.

To post to this group, send email to lojb...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Michael Turniansky]

  I didn't say that.  Of course we can, and do.   In fact, I suggested that LO is stressed there.  I am saying that in particular (at least in my dialect), ".i" in particular isn't usually stressed, since it's a sentence linker, and therefore more of a verbal hiccup than anything else.  Nevertheless, it could be stressed also.  But regardless of whether you hear "snow" as having a diphthong or not, it doesn't make it two syllables.  THAT'S the part of the verse where we have a problem.  I'd really love to hear you sing your lojban version, so I can hear how you think it should sound (because you so far haven't diagrammed it out), because it's really not doing it for me.

  (This is where I reiterate, "trust me, I've workshopped thousands of limericks over at oedilf.com.  I understand things about rhyme and meter.")