A few more sentences

[Erik Natanael Gustafsson]

coi ro do

I am working on a piece for flute quartet and I'm using a few Lojban phrases. The following are a few that I'm thinking about using and I would be most grateful if you would like to correct them and propose better translations.

Listen to us!

.i ko zgatirna mi

See us!

.i ko viska mi

Let us share our knowledge.

.i .au mi'o simxu dunda lo selju'o pe mi'o

We could mutually benefit one another (hard to translate from Swedish "Vi kan ha mycket glädje av varandra")

.i .au mi'o ba simxu rinka lo so'i xamgu

Collaboration.

.i mi'o kansi'u

Let us understand eachother.

.i .e'o .au mi'o simxu tersmu

We are not so different, you and me.

.i na'e frica fa do fe mi

We can share this place.

.i .au lonu mi'o xabju lo mintu stuzi cu cumki

This place where you are you, I am I and we are we.

.i le stuzi bu'u ku noi do backi do zi'e noi mi backi mi zi'e mi'o backi mi'o

di'ai mu'o

[Ian Johnson]

#1: tirna would be fine, but this is OK.

#2: Good.

#3: As with several of these you could really use the actual simxu structure, for instance {.i .au mi'o simxu lo ka [ce'u ce'u] ctuca}.

#4: Similar to 3, {.i mi'o kakne lo ka [ce'u] simxu lo ka [ce'u ce'u] xamgu}

#5: Seems OK, the original line isn't very clear of course.

#6: That is not what smuni3 is about: smuni3 is about who decides what the smuni1 of a certain smuni2 is. Here you want {jimpe} or similar.

#7: That's OK but it's clunky. I don't see why not to just write, say, {.i na mutce frica fa mi do} or similar.

#8: It depends a little bit on in what respect you are sharing it. One way would be {.i mi'o kakne lo ka [ce'u] dunli lo ka [ma kau] zdani [ce'u]}, which means "We can reside in the same home."

#9: I think this is hard, but I don't think you've really achieved it. I'm not sure I can help with it.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
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.

[selpa'i]

la'o me. Erik Natanael Gustafsson .me cusku di'e
> coi ro do

coi

> I am working on a piece for flute quartet and I'm using a few Lojban
> phrases. The following are a few that I'm thinking about using and I
> would be most grateful if you would like to correct them and propose
> better translations.

As latro'a has already pointed out most things that might need tweaking,
I'm just going to add my personal attempt at your sentences below.


> Listen to us!

ko tinju'i [tu'a] mi'a

({mi} instead of {mi'a} works only if the line is said by e.g. a choir
(which might be the case, of course))


> See us!

ko viska mi'a

> Let us share our knowledge.

.e'e mi'o simxu lo ka [ce'u] jungau [ce'u] fi lo se djuno be lo nei

(having to use {nei} is very ugly to me... there are ways to avoid it,
but they involve more advanced "tricks". It would be better to make a
new brivla for this purpose.)

> We could mutually benefit one another (hard to translate from Swedish
> "Vi kan ha mycket glädje av varandra")

mi'o ka'e simxu lo ka mutce xamgu/pluka/glekygau


> Collaboration.

.i da'i [gun]kansi'u


> Let us understand eachother.

.e'e mi'o simxu lo ka jimpe [tu'a ce'u]

> We are not so different, you and me.

so'u da te frica do mi

or: .i na ku so'i da te frica do mi

or: .i na fricysi'u so'i da fa do jo'u mi

> We can share this place.

tu'a lo vi stuzi ka'e kampu mi'o

> This place where you are you, I am I and we are we.

The ugly literal version:
.i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a do ckaji lo se ckaji be do zi'e noi
bu'u ke'a mi ckaji lo se ckaji be mi zi'e noi bu'u ke'a mi'o ckaji lo se
ckaji be mi'o

(it strongly depends on what "are" means in this context)

A possible alternative:
.i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi
.e do .e mi'o

Btw, what does {backi} mean?

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

[Stela Selckiku]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Erik Natanael Gustafsson <eriknatanae...@gmail.com> wrote:

coi ro do

 coi do

Let us share our knowledge.

.i .au mi'o simxu dunda lo selju'o pe mi'o

.i .au mi'o simxu lo ka jungau

 

We could mutually benefit one another (hard to translate from Swedish "Vi kan ha mycket glädje av varandra")

.i .au mi'o ba simxu rinka lo so'i xamgu

.i .au mi'o simxu lo ka xamgu

 

Let us understand eachother.

.i .e'o .au mi'o simxu tersmu

.i .e'o .au mi'o simxu lo ka slabu

 

We are not so different, you and me.

.i na'e frica fa do fe mi

.i frica fa do fe mi fi so'u po'o da

 

This place where you are you, I am I and we are we.

.i le stuzi bu'u ku noi do backi do zi'e noi mi backi mi zi'e mi'o backi mi'o

What's this {backi}? :o I don't see the difference with {mulno}?

I'm afraid you might have to explain what you mean by this? Is being identical with yourself a metaphor here, does it just mean being comfortable? I don't mean to dissect the metaphor to death, just it's hard to translate metaphors into Lojban generally of course. :)

 

di'ai mu'o

di'ai do

mi mutce lo ka gleki lo nu do lojbo

mi'e la stela selckiku

mu'o
 

[Erik Natanael Gustafsson]

coi .i ji'a ki'e
I have now managed to decipher all of your suggestions, that of course seem much more sensible. I am not completely sure what the nei at the end of selpa'i's sentence does though:

"> Let us share our knowledge.

.e'e mi'o simxu lo ka [ce'u] jungau [ce'u] fi lo se djuno be lo nei"

Why would I need to repeat the bridi there?

The last sentence is obviously the hardest one, because it is so vague and metaphorical. But I think what I mean is that each subject can be completely themselves at this place, that no aspect of them needs to change. I had a little trouble with selpa'i's second version of this (what selbri does the "fa"s refer to and how does the indirect question work?), but I think maybe it is getting at this?

".i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi .e do .e mi'o"

I like that it doesn't repeat the noi! Maybe mulno could be appropriate here as well? "... noi bu'u mi mulno tu'a mi". Could "tu'a mi" be like "the essence of me"?

backi was a word I found on sutsis, but it seems very similar to ckaji (except for the emphasis part).

Thanks for your very quick and thoughtful replies!

mu'o

[selpa'i]

la'o me. Erik Natanael Gustafsson .me cusku di'e

> coi .i ji'a ki'e
> I have now managed to decipher all of your suggestions, that of course
> seem much more sensible. I am not completely sure what the nei at the
> end of selpa'i's sentence does though:
>
> "> Let us share our knowledge.
>
> .e'e mi'o simxu lo ka [ce'u] jungau [ce'u] fi lo se djuno be lo nei"
>
> Why would I need to repeat the bridi there?

{lo nei} repeats the x1 of the current bridi. {nei} is the current bridi
(though it's grammatically a selbri), and {lo} always takes the x1 of a
selbri. In this case it is the x1 of {jungau}, which lets me refer back
to the first {ce'u}. I can't say {ce'u} again, because that would add a
third (unrelated) {ce'u} to the sentence (I'm also avoiding subscripting
{ce'u}).


There is a very verbose way to avoid {nei}:

simxu lo ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u ko'a jungau ko'e lo se
djuno be ko'a


And an experimental equivalent of this, using {ce'ai}:

simxu lo ka ko'a ko'e ce'ai ko'a jungau ko'e lo se djuno be ko'a

which in my opinion is still way too long too be practical.


That's why I think a new brivla would be good.

> The last sentence is obviously the hardest one, because it is so vague
> and metaphorical. But I think what I mean is that each subject can be
> completely themselves at this place, that no aspect of them needs to
> change. I had a little trouble with selpa'i's second version of this
> (what selbri does the "fa"s refer to and how does the indirect question
> work?), but I think maybe it is getting at this?
> ".i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi
> .e do .e mi'o"

It could be translated back into English as:

"this place, where me, you and we are free to have whatever properties
that we do"

The first {fa} is {go'i}'s x1, which is the previous sentence's x1.

The second {fa} points to {zifre}.

[Erik Natanael Gustafsson]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 2:25:28 PM UTC+2, selpa'i wrote:

> The last sentence is obviously the hardest one, because it is so vague
> and metaphorical. But I think what I mean is that each subject can be
> completely themselves at this place, that no aspect of them needs to
> change. I had a little trouble with selpa'i's second version of this
> (what selbri does the "fa"s refer to and how does the indirect question
> work?), but I think maybe it is getting at this?
> ".i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi
> .e do .e mi'o"

It could be translated back into English as:

"this place, where me, you and we are free to have whatever properties
that we do"

The first {fa} is {go'i}'s x1, which is the previous sentence's x1.

 
I really like that way of expressing it! So the second fa replaces the ke'a in the noi?

Why should I reference the previous sentence and replace its x1? Is it just a poetical way of phrasing? Does the phrase work without it (".i lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi .e do .e mi'o")?

[selpa'i]

la'o me. Erik Natanael Gustafsson .me cusku di'e

> On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 2:25:28 PM UTC+2, selpa'i wrote:
> > ".i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau
> kei fa mi
> > .e do .e mi'o"
>
> It could be translated back into English as:
>
> "this place, where me, you and we are free to have whatever properties
> that we do"
>
> The first {fa} is {go'i}'s x1, which is the previous sentence's x1.
>
> I really like that way of expressing it! So the second fa replaces the
> ke'a in the noi?

No. The {ke'a} is tagged by {bu'u}. It says that the event expressed in
the relative clause happens "where ke'a is", in other words, it happens
at "this place" (lo vi stuzi).

{bu'u ke'a zifre fa mi} is the same as {bu'u ke'a mi zifre}. Both mean
"where I am free".

> Why should I reference the previous sentence and replace its x1? Is it
> just a poetical way of phrasing? Does the phrase work without it (".i lo
> vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi .e do .e mi'o")?

Well, you can do that. It's just a sumti, which is fine. I simply
decided to make it a complete bridi, which requires a selbri. For that I
copied the selbri from the previous sentence, but changed the x1.

Here is a simpler example:

do nelci lo xrula .i go'i fa lo mamta be mi
"You like flowers. So does my mother."


By using {go'i} in the original sentence, I copied {ka'e kampu mi'o} (so
I didn't have to repeat it verbatim). The original English sort of
contains an implicit selbri, specifically an implicit {go'i}, so I made
it explicit in my translation (but this is not the only option).

[Erik Natanael Gustafsson]

ki'esai .i mi ca jimpe so'e ti .i ki'e ji'a ki'u lo mupli noi sidju
.i di'ai mu'o

[Michael Turniansky]

  Personally, for

We can share this place/ this place where you are you, I am I and we are we.". I would simply say,

"mi'o ka'e kanpli lo vi stuzi / noi bu'u ke'a do fa'u mi fa'u mi'o du do fa'u mi fa'u mi'o"

(But then, I am overly fond of fa'u consturctions....)

     ---gejyspa

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Erik Natanael Gustafsson <eriknatanae...@gmail.com> wrote:

ki'esai .i mi ca jimpe so'e ti .i ki'e ji'a ki'u lo mupli noi sidju
.i di'ai mu'o

--