xu do sisku lo lojbo tcana
  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply

Painter: Width: Height: Source:

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Subject (encouraged)
YouTube video (ALPHA)
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.


In the first book of Harry Potter, which I am rereading, it says (in chapter 12): "It was true that Harry wasn't going back to Privet Drive for Christmas."

Would it be grammatically correct to translate it into Lojban just as: [le du'u la .xaris. goi ko'a na'e xrukla le la .durlsis. zdani ku la .xajverukats. (Hogwarts) tezu'e ko'a joi le ko'a lanzu cu salci la xristydjed]

I really want to learn just whether or not it is correct to use just [le du'u] as an entire bridi, instead of part of one.


>> No.142  

I meant [la .xajverukarts.] -- not [la .xajverukats.]

>> No.143  

[la .mijdurslac] (Winterval, or "Mid-Winter Celebration") or [la xristyji'ebi'odjed] instead of [la .xristydjed.]

Also, should I have used parenthesis around everything after and including [tezu'i]?

I was being rushed, so sorry for a lot of it.

>> No.144  

[du'u] is an obscure yet beautiful concept.

It's completely unnecessary, incidentally, for clearly translating this English sentence-- the elaborate phrasing in the English is for style, and should IMHO be translated with equally stylish Lojban, not an attempt at making Lojban as wordy as English. :) English phrases that simply establish the relationship of the sentence to fact or other propositions, like "it was true that," are often most easily translated by attitudinals (in this case perhaps [je'u]).

But since [du'u] is a beautiful concept, I'll try to explain my fuzzy understanding of it to you anyway. The abstraction created by [du'u] refers to the proposition enclosed, itself. It accepts a full bridi, and what it points to is the information contained in that bridi. It's something which can be true or false, for instance. Something which can be learned, remembered, believed in and understood.

By the very place structure of du'u, x1 is a predication (bridi) expressed in sentence x2, we can see that it's possible to put a du'u into a particular form, a "se du'u", but the du'u itself is different from the form. The du'u is the predication itself, as a relationship, and the se du'u is a particular way the predication is expressed, such as a Lojbanic bridi. Things begin to eat their own tails here, a bit, as the bridi which we've put into the du'u abstraction is itself a se du'u of the du'u, by definition, just not the only possible one! For instance, if you say "du'u mi citka lo plise kei" (the predication of me eating an apple), then one se du'u of that du'u we've described is "mi citka lo plise", as said, while another equivalent se du'u is "lo plise cu se citka mi".

Here's a typical use of du'u in a sentence: ".i mi krici le du'u le terdi cu bolci" I believe that the earth is round. Or, much more literally: I believe some predication, which I will describe to you thusly: It's the predication expressed in this bridi: "This thing called "earth" is a spherical object."

You can use a [du'u] phrase as a whole bridi. In that case you do not want to say "le", whose purpose is to turn a selbri into a sumti. If you put the "le", then you've just said one sumti and not said what relationship it's in-- a valid and common sentence form actually, but mostly used for answering questions. Without the "le", you can use a du'u as an observative bridi: "du'u le terdi cu bolci [kei]" What it means is "something (you probably can guess what) is the predication expressed by 'le terdi cu bolci'", which is rarely what you'd mean to say. Here's an artificial context that might make sense of it:

.i mi krici so'i du'u co'e
.i du'u le terdi cu bolci
.i du'u la .lojban. cu xamgu

(I believe many predications of something.. that the Earth is round, that Lojban is good.)

Thanks for asking. Lojban thrives on your curiosity.

mu'o mi'e .selkik.

>> No.146  


So, is this better?:

[je'u la .xaris. goi ko'a (ge'u) (cu) na'e (cu (dependent on other [cu])) xrukla le la .durlsis. zdani ku la .xajverukarts. (vei) tezu'e ko'a joi le ko'a lanzu cu salci la .xrist(mivbixy)djed. (ve'o) .i]

Are [vei] / [ve'o] just for the [mekso] system, or may they be used for the normal written/spoken language?

Also, I got it from the en.wikibooks.org list of [lujvo], but is [xrukla] really the correct term for "to return, go back"? The [gismu] definition seems to mean "to return, to give back". [refkla] ("recur-go") seems to be more appropriate.

mi'e .djustin. mu'o

>> No.168  


Yes! That is better. :) You'll also need to say an abstraction after "te zu'e"-- in this case inserting "lo nu" between "tezu'e" and "ko'a" would be grammatical.

"tezu'e" is here functioning as a sumti tcita. It opens up a new place in the structure, and what goes into that place is a sumti. For instance: "te zu'e lo te zukte [ku]" -- with motive, something which is a motive. In this case the sumti you want to put is (simplfied) "lo nu salci [kei] [ku]", so you say "te zu'e lo nu salci".

"xrukla" is indeed a word that means to go to a place you have already been, to return. It's one of the most common lujvo in real use, in my experience. Which is not to say whether it's truly well formed. :)

za'e .io zei mu'o

>> No.169  

Actually, that thing about "xrukla". After rereading the definition, I discovered that the "original state" could be that of being located at a certain spot. "refkla" would theoretically mean "re-go".

I have a question about something else. If I wanted to utter (write/verbalize/etc.) a conditional statement (basically saying "would") but did not want to utter the entire if-then statement, could I do the following: ganai kugi mi nelci levi cukta .i
:If something was true, then I would like this book. (I would like this book.)

I know that this is not the best example, but it was the best one I could think of at the moment. Iff this is gramatically correct, then could I leave out the "ku"? Is there any better way to do this? Maybe something similar to (following the English "would"-particle idea (malgli(co)?)): mi cu ganai gi nelci levi cukta .i

Thanks for all the help.

>> No.171  


I believe that those examples aren't quite gendra (grammatically correct), no. If you want part of a logical connection to be unspecified, you'll need to be explicit about the nonspecification with a generic word like "co'e" (meaning just something happening, some unspecified bridi relationship): "ga nai co'e gi mi nelci le vi cukta". Note that statements concocted with "ganai" have a very precise, logical meaning, which may not be exactly what you think it is at first glance. It's rarely my first chance to translate "if" and it's not what I would choose to translate "would". :)

Almost all of the machinations of English that are really about establishing context and intension for the sentence should IMHO be replaced with attitudinals in a lobykai translation. "I am happy that" --> ".ui" "I'm not sure whether" --> "ju'o cu'i" Etc.

An interesting and somewhat idiomatic way to say that something would be the case in some unspecified circumstance is to use "va'o". "va'o" is a BAI that gives you a place for the conditions under which the bridi holds true. So you can vaguely say "mi va'o nelci le vi cukta", I like (or will like, or have liked) this book under some (unspecified) conditions.

>> No.172  

I see. Actually I re-alized that an attitudinal might be able to do it the moment I started reading your response. Lol. I like that thing with "va'o" though.

Is there any place that I can learn about how to use attitudinals and discursives/evidentials more easily?

>> No.181  

maybe http://jbotcan.org/cllc/#13

>> No.190  


There always is cniglic (http://community.livejournal.com/cniglic).

Delete Post []