jeeg and Talen: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


The I Can Eat Glass Project [http://hcs.harvard.edu/~igp/glass.html] gives translations of "I can eat glass, it doesn't hurt me" in many languages, including Lojban. (Note that the English "hurt" here is ambiguous; it could mean either "harm" or "cause pain".)
Here's the Jeeg and Talen anecdote as printed in [[jbocre: The Loglanist L|The Loglanist L]] 4:4, pp. 169,171-73. It's in pre-[[jbocre: GMR|GMR]] [[jbocre: Loglan|Loglan]].  Translators to Lojban are invited, and I will be


Unfortunately, the Lojban translation is incorrect: ''mi ka'e citka loi blaci .i la'edi'u na xrani mi''
glad to help!


[[jbocre: Michael Helsem|Michael Helsem]] gives the brief: ''.e'e gu'e blaci citka ginai cortu''
===  LO CORTA GE LOGLA STUCI CA VIRSA ===


I suggest the direct: ''mi kakne le nu citka loi blaci kei noi na xrani''
Mi pa vetfa levi ja cmima stuci jo.


Shorter (and thus untrue to the rambling original): ''mi ka'e nalxai citka loi blaci''
To ba pa gandi.  I ne le tora pa nu namci li Djig lu.  Ice le norsa pa nu namci li Talen lu(1).  I le gandi pia traci lo Rara gi duo be ji lepo lo gandi pa traci(2).  I do durdu cansivdu.  I la Djig cutse li Nu jimta Talen lu(3).  I levi po jimta pa fu stari la Talen gi numoi lepo da djano lepo da bisti djimi la Djig gi nanobi(4).  Imoi da kuncu li Ue ei tu sui rardjano(5) lu.


Shortest I see: ''e'e nalxai blacycti''
Nau eu la Talen fea(6) rardjano kie tiu nu snola lepo da nu plipu li sui lu kiu.  Isoa kia no da cnida lepo kuncu gi nusoa lepo da bisti djano le nu retcu.


There are a lot of ways to say things!
--Richard Darwin, edited by [[jbocre: pc|pc]].


Discussed on the list:
===  Translation ===


[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/4296
I have invented this "amusing story" [[jbocre: horror quotes|horror quotes]]


] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/4310
There were two gods. One of the two was named Jeeg, the other Talen. And the two of them were travelling about in the Cosmos in whatever manner it is that gods travel and they happened to run into each other.  Jeeg said, "Hail, Talen."  Now this greeting rather surprised Talen because he knew that he had never met Jeeg before.  So he asked, "Oh, are you omniscient too?"


[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/7392
If Talen were really omniscient (as he implies by his use of "also") then he wouldn't need to ask, because he'd already know the answer.


''mi'e] [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''
===  Notes by pc except as noted ===


----
[[jbocre: bracketed insertions by [jbocre: John Cowan e|John Cowan e]]
 
1.  The first two sentences of this story are a challenge. The reading given here for the second part is safe, but inefficient compared to the English 'They were named Jeeg and Talen'.  The problem is to find something nearly as tidy in Lojban.  The direct ''ba nu namci li Djig lu e li Talen lu'' [[jbocre: i.e., ''da se cmene lu Djig li'u .e lu Talen li'u''|i.e., ''da se cmene lu Djig li'u .e lu Talen li'u'']] fails on all counts, since it gives both of them both names.  Another attempt -- ''ba nu namci li Djig lu onoi'' [[jbocre: i.e. ''.onai''|i.e. ''.onai'']] ''li Talen lu'' -- guarantees that each has only one name, but allows that it may be the same for both.
 
Mr. Darwin [[jbocre: originally|originally]] tried to solve the problem by using ''rerne'', the predicate indicating a 1-1 relationship between -- in this case -- the relevant sets of gods and of names.  One way of doing this would be to change the first sentence to ''ba pa gandi tora'' [[jbocre: i.e. ''da pu cevni remei''|i.e. ''da pu cevni remei'']], so that ''ba'' now stands for the couple, not its members.  Then ''ba nu namci nrene li Djig lu ze li Talen lu'' might work -- unless you believe that ''ze'' [[jbocre: ''joi''|''joi'']]between two strings indicates string concatenation (''li A lu ze li B lu = li AB lu'').
 
There are reasons to think that this is not the case (e.g., ''ze'' usually forms a reference to a team, an entity of a different type from what is named by the constituent expressions), but it might be better to use the list notation here to be safe:  ''lie li Djig lu li Talen lu'', or whatever is finally decided on for this.


''lo'edu'u mi citka lo blaci kei ge mi se kakne gi na xrani mi''
Finally, there is the perfectly safe (but horribly inelegant) expansion of the whole, expanding ''toba'' [[jbocre: ''reda''|''reda'']] and going on from there:  ''ba e be pa gandi ice ba no bi be ice ba nu namci li Djig lu ice be nu namci li Talen lu'' [[jbocre: i.e. ''da .e de pu cevni .ije da na du de .ije da se cmene lu Djig li'u .ije de se cmene lu Talen li'u''|i.e. ''da .e de pu cevni .ije da na du de .ije da se cmene lu Djig li'u .ije de se cmene lu Talen li'u'']].  Other, more compact suggestions would be welcome (see elsewhere on the need for a "respectively" operator to allow this last chunk to go ''ba e be nu namci li Djig lu e li Talen lu (resp.)''


- ''du'u'' is wrong. I think this would be better with ye olde heavy shift, that is to say, best move the long part to the end. ''mi kakne jenai selxai le nu citka loi blaci'' This version needs reworking if you prefer ''cortu'' over ''xrani'' because of different terbri. ''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''
* Lojban has ''fa'u'' for this, though unfortunately there is no corresponding gadri with the same meaning. I would say: ''lei re cevni zo'u zo djig fa'u zo talen cmene''. "There were two gods" doesn't sound like an existential claim, more like an introduction of the topic. The story could perfectly well develop in such a way that they encounter a third god for example, so we don't want to make the claim that "two and only two things are gods".--[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]


* I agree that a heavy-shifted version is generally preferable, but it greatly distorts the sequence of information presentation of the original. ''le nu'' is certainly incorrect by my understanding of the English, as no specific event is being referred to; in the context of the present sentence, ''lo'e'' would probably be the safest gadri choice. As for whether ''nu'' is preferable to ''du'u'', this is an unresolved issue that, hopefully, will eventually be resolved by jboske.
2. ''be ji A'' ought to reduce to just A. Here it is left unreduced to show that what A is is unknown. Does this really work?
** OK, wanting to keep the order is a good reason. I agree that ''lo'e'' is more precise than ''le''. But ''du'u'' is simply wrong. It leaves the meaning as "the fact that I can eat glass does not hurt me," which has the incorrect property of being true! ''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''


***Well, you should have said "the fact that I eat glass is something I am capable of and does not hurt me". A mere proposition doesn't hurt us, but its being true does, and sometimes a du'u sumti is interpreted as "x2's being true". I won't debate the pros and cons of ''nu'' here, because it's too problematic an issue to do it justice. But I think you're probably right that ''lo'e nu'' is best.
3. ''nu jimta'' seems more apropos both because it is extra-formal and because it would seem to fit the well-known divine propensity for commands. --Richard Darwin
** It is difficult to argue that ''le'' is wrong, because the English original is vague. Suppose the conversation was, "I can eat glass. I know because I've done it," then "le nu..." could be taken as referring to specific actual past events of eating glass. Similarly for "I can eat glass. Watch this!" which refers to a specific future event, and "I'll bet you a quarter I can eat glass," which refers to a specific hypothetical event. If the English said, "in the general case, I can eat glass" then ''lo'e'' would be dead on. That's a reasonable interpretation, and one that some people have assumed, but it's not the only one--we simply do not know what the speaker had in mind, especially not a speaker as crazy as this. ''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''


***Can one be capable of a specific nu? I can't seem to make sense of anything but ''kakne lo'e nu''. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
4. or ''da nopa djimi la Djig''.
**** That's unclear to me. I think it depends on what exactly it means for ''le'' to be "specific". You might argue when you say ''kakne le nu'' that you were referring to the specific, though unknown, events of eating glass where you succeed; "I can eat glass, sometimes, and those are the times I'm talking about." That's some kind of specificity, though vague, and people could argue forever about whether it counted as truly specific. There doesn't seem to be any way to pin it down, so I guess usage will have to decide how specific you have to be to use ''le''. ''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''


**** 'Specific' is a technical term (also called 'referential'. It is part of the meaning of e-gadri. Here is not the place to discuss it, but in brief, it means that you have certain particular events of my eating glass in mind. The sentence would be false only if I were incapable of those specific events. But to me it doesn't make sense to be capable of a specific event: one is capable of realizing an instance -- any instance -- of some generic class of events. Anyway, I'm now running up against the limits of how far I've thought all these issues through so far, so I'll leave it by saying that at least for the time being ''le nu'' is not demonstrably incorrect (and may eventually prove to be demonstrably correct). --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
5.  RARDJANO (''ra djano'', all-know)  X is omniscient.


what exactly is the problem with the original answer!!!
6.  FEA, from ''fekti'', [[jbocre: meaning|meaning]] "in fact".  I cannot find a reference for this, though it seems to be old.


i’m capable of eating the mass really is glass - the referent of the last utterance didn’t hurt me!
=== Partial translation into modern Lojban ===


it is fine!!!!! ko smaji o'onai y o'onaisai
=== LO TORDU KE LOJBO LISRI JA PEMCI ===


i now see on mailing list that! you complain that in the English it not supposed to be the capability of eating glass that’s unhurtful it’s the glass-eating itself. that is not the way I read the english. I read it as capability being unhurtful - the ba'e ka'e citka.
mi pu finti levi fu'epe'a zdile lisri fu'o


you discussed this on the list and on this wiki! well! you’ve read the sentence exactly how I intended it!!!!!! I saw this page earlier and thought oh well guess I made a mistake when I was new at lojban. but!!!! now I read the discussion and I see that it wasn’t wrong it came out just as I meant!
re da pu cevni .i pa le remei pu se cmene zo djig. .ije le drata pu se cmene zo talen. .i le cevni puca'o litru le kensa ta'i de poi lo cevni pu litru .i ra simxu cunpe'i .i la djig. cusku lu" doi talen., rinsa ko "li'u .i di'u noi nu rinsa kei cu spaji la talen. mu'i lenu ri djuno ledu'u purci penmi la djig ca nodi .isemu'ibo ra retsku lu" .ue xu do ji'a roldjuno? "li'u


maybe I misinterpreted '''the English''' and maybe your interpretation of the English is correct it’s supposed to be specific events of glass-eating that’s unhurtful but to go from that to say that the Lojban is incorrect is wicked!! I meant this: I’m capable of eating glass and that capacity doesn’t hurt me! A perfectly reasonable interpretation of the text string “I can eat glass, it doesn’t hurt me”. English is ambiguous bull shit!!! I hate it. I want not to know it!!
ni'o da'i la talen ca'a roldjuno to di'u se nibli lenu ri pilno zo ji'a toi, .iseni'ibo ra na nitcu lenu retsku ni'i lenu ra ba'o djuno le danfu


mi djica lonu la lojban po'o bangu mi
----


I am angry that you did this supposed fix. I’ve made many mistakes at lojban and corrections are always welcome. this is the first time I react like this. --because it’s not a correction it’s a NIH-situation—not invented here, everyone wants their own spin, their own go at painting the bikeshed. well!-- maybe that wasn’t the reason. but just that everyone was so eager to jump to conclusion and assume that the other erred in the Lojban and always always always this switching to English. not everyone is English! also note that before I read the discussion I wasn’t mad I just thought Oh, sad, I must’ve made mistake. mad became I after I saw what the supposed “error” was
=== Another translation ===


ta'a mi'e la selckiku .i .ie ro nu lojbo darlu cu te pilno .ei la .lojban. .i da'i zmadu lo ka racli .i le za'e jbobramenli cu ze'u za'a pensi lo simsa .i zo malglico noi za'e tcelaldo cu mupli .i le jbopre cu djica ju fliba lo nu racli .i .ie sai na drani fa lo nu tolxendo cusku lo se du'u lo jbopre selsku cu jai se srera .i ku'i ze'u za'a cafne ke simsa srera fa le jbopre .i le nu drani kei le nu xendo kei cu zmadu le ka vajni .ie nai sai .i le do selsku cu .ie .ia banzu drani .i mi jimpe .i le jbopre cu na'e se mansa lo nu banzu ku'i .i za'e duspa'e sisku .i ku'i ma'a jboklu jai galfi .i le cnino ninpre ba ca'e zgana lo kanro se cinmo jboklu .i do .ia gasnu .i ki'e xendo .i ko ranji troci mu'o
=== lo tordu ke lojbo lisri ja pemci ===


doi selckiku iosai iu
mi pu finti le di'e fu'e pe'a zdile lisri fu'o


.i mi dukse fengu u'u
ni'o lei re cevni zo'u zo djig fa'u zo talen cmene i cy ca'o litru le kensa tai lo'e nu lo'e cevni cu litru i cy cunpe'i simxu i la djig cusku lu coi talen li'u


.i mi pu djica lonu cusku lu mi ka'e citka lo blaci .i la'edi'u na xrani mi li'u
i le nu rinsa cu spaji la talen noi ke'a djuno le du'u ke'a noroi pu penmi la djig i semu'ibo ty preti cusku lu ue xu do ji'a roldjuno li'u


to srera jenaiku'i jundi tu'a zo loi toi
ni'o ro mu'ei le du'u la talen ca'a roldjuno kei noi le nu ty pilno zo ji'a cu stidi nibli ke'a cu na nitcu le nu preti cusku kei ki'u le nu ty djuno le danfu


.i mi piso'iroi xendo naje fengu
--i ba'o fanva fa la [[User:xorxes|xorxes]]


mu'o mi'e snan
----

Revision as of 16:55, 4 November 2013

Here's the Jeeg and Talen anecdote as printed in The Loglanist L 4:4, pp. 169,171-73. It's in pre-GMR Loglan. Translators to Lojban are invited, and I will be

glad to help!

LO CORTA GE LOGLA STUCI CA VIRSA

Mi pa vetfa levi ja cmima stuci jo.

To ba pa gandi. I ne le tora pa nu namci li Djig lu. Ice le norsa pa nu namci li Talen lu(1). I le gandi pia traci lo Rara gi duo be ji lepo lo gandi pa traci(2). I do durdu cansivdu. I la Djig cutse li Nu jimta Talen lu(3). I levi po jimta pa fu stari la Talen gi numoi lepo da djano lepo da bisti djimi la Djig gi nanobi(4). Imoi da kuncu li Ue ei tu sui rardjano(5) lu.

Nau eu la Talen fea(6) rardjano kie tiu nu snola lepo da nu plipu li sui lu kiu. Isoa kia no da cnida lepo kuncu gi nusoa lepo da bisti djano le nu retcu.

--Richard Darwin, edited by pc.

Translation

I have invented this "amusing story" horror quotes

There were two gods. One of the two was named Jeeg, the other Talen. And the two of them were travelling about in the Cosmos in whatever manner it is that gods travel and they happened to run into each other. Jeeg said, "Hail, Talen." Now this greeting rather surprised Talen because he knew that he had never met Jeeg before. So he asked, "Oh, are you omniscient too?"

If Talen were really omniscient (as he implies by his use of "also") then he wouldn't need to ask, because he'd already know the answer.

Notes by pc except as noted

[[jbocre: bracketed insertions by [jbocre: John Cowan e|John Cowan e]]

1. The first two sentences of this story are a challenge. The reading given here for the second part is safe, but inefficient compared to the English 'They were named Jeeg and Talen'. The problem is to find something nearly as tidy in Lojban. The direct ba nu namci li Djig lu e li Talen lu i.e., da se cmene lu Djig li'u .e lu Talen li'u fails on all counts, since it gives both of them both names. Another attempt -- ba nu namci li Djig lu onoi i.e. .onai li Talen lu -- guarantees that each has only one name, but allows that it may be the same for both.

Mr. Darwin originally tried to solve the problem by using rerne, the predicate indicating a 1-1 relationship between -- in this case -- the relevant sets of gods and of names. One way of doing this would be to change the first sentence to ba pa gandi tora i.e. da pu cevni remei, so that ba now stands for the couple, not its members. Then ba nu namci nrene li Djig lu ze li Talen lu might work -- unless you believe that ze joibetween two strings indicates string concatenation (li A lu ze li B lu = li AB lu).

There are reasons to think that this is not the case (e.g., ze usually forms a reference to a team, an entity of a different type from what is named by the constituent expressions), but it might be better to use the list notation here to be safe: lie li Djig lu li Talen lu, or whatever is finally decided on for this.

Finally, there is the perfectly safe (but horribly inelegant) expansion of the whole, expanding toba reda and going on from there: ba e be pa gandi ice ba no bi be ice ba nu namci li Djig lu ice be nu namci li Talen lu i.e. da .e de pu cevni .ije da na du de .ije da se cmene lu Djig li'u .ije de se cmene lu Talen li'u. Other, more compact suggestions would be welcome (see elsewhere on the need for a "respectively" operator to allow this last chunk to go ba e be nu namci li Djig lu e li Talen lu (resp.)

  • Lojban has fa'u for this, though unfortunately there is no corresponding gadri with the same meaning. I would say: lei re cevni zo'u zo djig fa'u zo talen cmene. "There were two gods" doesn't sound like an existential claim, more like an introduction of the topic. The story could perfectly well develop in such a way that they encounter a third god for example, so we don't want to make the claim that "two and only two things are gods".--xorxes

2. be ji A ought to reduce to just A. Here it is left unreduced to show that what A is is unknown. Does this really work?

3. nu jimta seems more apropos both because it is extra-formal and because it would seem to fit the well-known divine propensity for commands. --Richard Darwin

4. or da nopa djimi la Djig.

5. RARDJANO (ra djano, all-know) X is omniscient.

6. FEA, from fekti, meaning "in fact". I cannot find a reference for this, though it seems to be old.

Partial translation into modern Lojban

LO TORDU KE LOJBO LISRI JA PEMCI

mi pu finti levi fu'epe'a zdile lisri fu'o

re da pu cevni .i pa le remei pu se cmene zo djig. .ije le drata pu se cmene zo talen. .i le cevni puca'o litru le kensa ta'i de poi lo cevni pu litru .i ra simxu cunpe'i .i la djig. cusku lu" doi talen., rinsa ko "li'u .i di'u noi nu rinsa kei cu spaji la talen. mu'i lenu ri djuno ledu'u purci penmi la djig ca nodi .isemu'ibo ra retsku lu" .ue xu do ji'a roldjuno? "li'u

ni'o da'i la talen ca'a roldjuno to di'u se nibli lenu ri pilno zo ji'a toi, .iseni'ibo ra na nitcu lenu retsku ni'i lenu ra ba'o djuno le danfu


Another translation

lo tordu ke lojbo lisri ja pemci

mi pu finti le di'e fu'e pe'a zdile lisri fu'o

ni'o lei re cevni zo'u zo djig fa'u zo talen cmene i cy ca'o litru le kensa tai lo'e nu lo'e cevni cu litru i cy cunpe'i simxu i la djig cusku lu coi talen li'u

i le nu rinsa cu spaji la talen noi ke'a djuno le du'u ke'a noroi pu penmi la djig i semu'ibo ty preti cusku lu ue xu do ji'a roldjuno li'u

ni'o ro mu'ei le du'u la talen ca'a roldjuno kei noi le nu ty pilno zo ji'a cu stidi nibli ke'a cu na nitcu le nu preti cusku kei ki'u le nu ty djuno le danfu

--i ba'o fanva fa la xorxes