Give us a moment, please.

[ravas]

"Give us a moment, please."
I found this sentence here:
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/2645083
It had a lojban translation:
{ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa}

Obviously the English sentence is an idiom,
which we won't translate directly.
However, is the aforementioned lojban coherent?

I think {e'o do ze'i denpa} would work.

Another translation could be {e'o do ze'i xrukla vi}.

I also thought of:
{e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivtavla}
[Request] We [for a short time period] want to privately talk.

Curiously
camxes.lojban.org/ (awesome)
claims this is not grammatically correct.
Yet it has no problem with:
{e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivni tavla}

Is {sivtavla} incorrect? Or have I discovered a bug?

[ravas]

Maybe {e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivni nuncasnu} is what I wanted.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

or may be more precisely {e'o mi'a zukte ze'i} since the emphasis is on what we do, not they wait.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ilmen]

On 15/12/2014 05:58, ravas wrote:
> Curiously
> camxes.lojban.org/ (awesome)
> claims this is not grammatically correct.
> Yet it has no problem with:
> {e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivni tavla}
>
> Is {sivtavla} incorrect? Or have I discovered a bug?

Lojban's morphophonology disallows a voiced stop/fricative consonant to
be adjacent to a voiceless consonant. The -y- hyphen is required between
siv- and -tavla in order to prevent the formation of the -vt- cluster,
which is an illegal cluster (two stop/fricative consonants differing in
voiceness are next to each other).
As a result, the correct lujvo form is {sivytavla}, or better,
{sivyta'a} (-ta'a- is a rafsi of {tavla}).

mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.

[Ilmen]

On 15/12/2014 05:58, ravas wrote:

"Give us a moment, please."
I found this sentence here:
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/2645083
It had a lojban translation:
{ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa}

Obviously the English sentence is an idiom,
which we won't translate directly.
However, is the aforementioned lojban coherent?

I think {e'o do ze'i denpa} would work.

Another translation could be {e'o do ze'i xrukla vi}.

I also thought of:
{e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivtavla}
[Request] We [for a short time period] want to privately talk.

Both {ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa} and {.e'o do ze'i denpa} seem okay to me.

{.e'o do ze'i xrukla vi} — "please go back for a short time and at a short distance" ~ "please be such that, during a short time, at a short distance, you're going back".
I'm not quite sure what did you mean with this one sentence, but it isn't suitable for the original English sentence.
Maybe did you want {.e'o do ze'i zvada'o} — "please be away for a short duration"?

As for {.e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivytavla}, the way {.e'o} is usually used, it would mean "I request you that for a short time we want private-talking", in which "we want" seems misplaced.
I'd have said {.e'o mi'a ze'i sivycasnu} — "I request you that me-and-the-other(s) privatly talk to each other for a small duration" —, or {.e'o curmi lo nu mi'a ze'i sivycasnu}.

.a'o mi sidju
mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o

[ravas]

On Monday, December 15, 2014 12:04:03 AM UTC-8, la gleki wrote:

or may be more precisely {e'o mi'a zukte ze'i} since the emphasis is on what we do, not they wait.

.ua ta frica

ki'esai .io

[ravas]

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:33:06 AM UTC-8, Ilmen wrote: 

Lojban's morphophonology disallows a voiced stop/fricative consonant to
be adjacent to a voiceless consonant.

.i'o do pu ciksi

[ravas]

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:59:41 AM UTC-8, Ilmen wrote: 

Both {ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa} and {.e'o do ze'i denpa} seem okay to me.

{.e'o do ze'i xrukla vi} — "please go back for a short time and at a short distance" ~ "please be such that, during a short time, at a short distance, you're going back".
I'm not quite sure what did you mean with this one sentence, but it isn't suitable for the original English sentence.
Maybe did you want {.e'o do ze'i zvada'o} — "please be away for a short duration"?

As for {.e'o mi'a ze'i djica lo nu sivytavla}, the way {.e'o} is usually used, it would mean "I request you that for a short time we want private-talking", in which "we want" seems misplaced.
I'd have said {.e'o mi'a ze'i sivycasnu} — "I request you that me-and-the-other(s) privatly talk to each other for a small duration" —, or {.e'o curmi lo nu mi'a ze'i sivycasnu}.

 How is {ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa} translated?

{.e'o do ze'i xrukla vi} was my attempt at:" I request that you return here after a short time span."
Does [vi] not work as [here]?

Thank you for the other examples!

.io

[Ilmen]

On 15/12/2014 22:07, ravas wrote:
> How is {ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa} translated?
>
> {.e'o do ze'i xrukla vi} was my attempt at:" I request that you return
> here after a short time span."
> Does [vi] not work as [here]?

{ko tu'a mi ze'i denpa} = «[imperative] you, wait for me for a short time!».
{tu'a mi} ≈ "an event in which I'm involved" (more naturally translated
as "about me" or simply "me").

As for «I request that you return here after a short time span», this
would translate to {.e'o xrukla mi'a ba zi}, or {.e'o ba zi xrukla lo vi
stuzi}.

{vi X} means that the event described by the bridi happens at a short
distance (specified by X) from the reference location (probably the
speaker).
For example, {lo mlatu cu sipna vi} means "the event of [the cat is
sleeping] takes place nearby".
{ko vi xrukla} just means that you request that the event of the
addressee going back [to some unspecified place] happens nearby, which
isn't really the same thing as requesting that he/she goes back *to you*.

[ravas]

ki'ecai .io