Legge's translation is here.

Oh, no! Good mark for internet search, but don't interlard! Imagine why I tried to get the text's translation directly from Chinese! In order to get you out of your <d> Western thinking. Please do net let good old Legge formulate these thoughts in fenced-in English for you, but try to be creative in Lojban 'before' having the very idea expressed in any Western grammar! Your remarks are all somehow to the point, yet, don't just run the fish machine and tell me the output, but take the Book, reflect on it and give creative answers, e.g. on the "possible" use of {ku} or the real meaning of what you just are calling " epistemology" from looking into your software for the gismu! - Luckily not having chosen a teacher's profession :-))))

Maybe we try another one?


ni'a lo tsani ku
lo li'i jijnu le du'u melbi kei lo melbi
cu se jalge lenu pu'ojeca zasti falo nalmelbi
.i lo li'i jijnu le du'u vrude kei lo vrude
cu se jalge lenu pu'ojeca zasti falo nalvu'e

lonu zasti ce lonu na zasti cu finsi'u
.i loka nandu ce loka frili cu riksi'u
.i loka clani ce loka tordu cu mresi'u
.i loka galtu ce loka dizlu cu bapsi'u
.i lo voksa lo sance cu sarxe
.i caku lo purci lo bavli cu katyje'i

This is a direct translation from ancient Chinese to Lojban. I'd be 'interested in your translation' to English, or any other language you're familiar with. co'omi'e .aulun.

I have a lot of questions about this translation. Me too, that's why I put it here To start:

  • Is munjyne'i ku grammatical?
    • If so, why not mujne'i ku?
      • I didn't write it, but I assume because for nonce lujvo it's better to leave the unfamiliar part expanded out.
    • Why should it not be grammatical (yet don't want to discuss basics here). But I like {mujne'i} even better for being shorter.
    • jbofi'e considers it ungrammatical. It's right; I can't find a grammar rule to support the construction <brivla> + ku. It becomes grammatical if, say, le or ro is put in front (making it a regular sumti of se jalge and messing up the rest). Yes, in 'this' special case the problem could be avoided by {ne'i lo munje ku...} or more literally {ni'a lo tsani ku} but...
      • But what? Is fi'o not good enough for other cases?

  • I don't understand lo melbi as a te jijnu. How can lo melbi be an epistemology under which one intuits?
    • In the last moment, I thought {jijnu} being better than {djuno} to give Chinese "zhi1" (which has many shades of meaning) and I didn't have problems with the place called "epistemology"

  • pu'ojeca zasti falo nalmelbi Is that better than simply pu'ojeca nalmelbi? The meaning seems to be nearly identical.
    • What 'is' the meaning? ;-)

  • dizlu must be a typo for dizlo. Are galtu and dizlo being used in a metaphorical sense? Do they mean something like heavenly and earthly, or powerful and weak?
    • It should be dizlo (typo!) - Thanks. Don't think that it's meant metaphorically, since Chinese tends to be pretty concrete.

  • lo voksa joi lo sance cu saxsi'u It seems odd to use a lujvo with simxu for a set with one member. Is this somehow a better translation than simply lo voksa lo sance cu sarxe?
    • And here you 'are' absolutely right, thanks! You can call it {pevykalci} :-( (I forgot to change the lujvo when altering this verse's sumti from something like {ro voksa} to voksa joi sance following the Chinese original.) I'll change that.

Why daudydjin.? Why not a tanru based on dadjo?

  • No, because it's a proper name you can't even really translate into other languages (remember the many different versions existing!) so it's better to leave it as it is. (Something with {dadjo} and {dargu} and {cukta} wouldn't be appropriate - lo'i cukta pe lo dargu .e lo vrude brrr)

Created by admin. Last Modification: Friday 30 of November, 2001 12:31:04 GMT by admin.