History: attempts at translating a relatively simple gubblick

Source of version: 1 (current)

''.i le di'u gulbiki cu vasru so'i na'e sklarki ke lojbo futspa .i ku'i le sucta plugandispa cu kakne le nu se gloka sepi'o le vanbi'' That sounds like you're talking about some type of plant that grows on a broad island. Also ''di'u'' is wrong. ''dei noi galbiku cu vasru so'i nalysklarko ke lojbo flustpa .iku'i le banli plagndispo ka'e se glorkena fi le vlavanbi'' * Yet another flaw in type four poo'ivla. ''glorkena''? What's wrong with ''glorke'', since ''rke'' cannot be a rafsi and thus it is not a lujvo? **''le glorke'' would be understood as the lujvo leg-lorke. *** Ok, glorkte, since that adds only one phoneme '''and''' matches the pronunciation of the English word ''glorked''. * And why do you ryndomla chenga the vewols uroand? plagandispo? why not plugandispo? And why galbiku - which is a tosmabru, ''galbi ku'' just meaning galbi here. A ''gismu be noda'' perhaps, but still, come on. **''galbiku'' is not a tosmabru. galBIku cannot be read as GALbi ku ** That still doesn't justify plagandispo instead of plugandispo or, better yet, plygandespo, pronounced like the "english" but with an o on the end and a different but still lax vowel before the ''sp''. It also doesn't justify the l coming before the b. *** If you need to make such trivial criticisms, brush up on your morphology rules. You can't use the letter ''y'' in a fu'ivla. ''gabliku'' is a tosmabru. And guess what? It __doesn't matter__ if it's ''plugandispo'' or ''plagndispo'', or ''glorkena'' or ''glorkte''! It __doesn't mean anything!__ The second sentence above is fine; this is a silly sentence being translated, not the Bible. --((rab.spir)) (who didn't write the sentence) **** I think that because it is meaningless, we shouldn't try to translate it. However, if we must, we should capture the same nonsense that the author intended, for otherwise we might as well just make our own. Therefore I hold transliteration of nonsense words to a relatively higher standard than that of most fu'ivla, but at the same time I see this as a simple demonstration of the folly of type 4s. They expect someone familiar with the original sentence to recognize ''glorkena'', even context-free if the fu'ivla is to be more meaningful than a random collection of syllables, when glorkena sounds nothing like what it is a lojbanization of! ***** For someone who thinks type 4's should never be used, you sure have a lot of suggestions about how they should be used. And you still seem to be missing the point that these particular fu'ivla ''are'' supposed to be only as meaningful as a random collection of syllables. Even so the Lojban version can stand on its own without it mattering what the English version sounds like, precisely because of the glorking that it describes. ***** I would like type 4s if they didn't mangle the original word to the point of no return. I have ''never'' complained about fu'ivla that someone familiar with the original could recognize. It's just that they never are, and we can't even do it with nonsense! Thus I propose ''dei poi bridrgubliki cu vasru so'i to'e kaursklarke lojbo vlarflutspa .iku'i le banli smunrplugandespi ka'e se jimprglorke vega'a le valsi vanbi''. This unfortunately loses the nonsense aspect - which could be preserved by using nonexistant gisms - but if you look at the post-hyphen part the fu'ivla are closer. Gubblick: galbiku/gubliki, (non)sklarkish: nalysklarko/na'e sklarke, flutzpah: flutspa/flutspa, pluggandisp: plagndispo/plugandespi, glork: glorkena/glorke. As for it already being nonsense, it is nonsense that has come to have a meaning. Even Jabberwocky had many of the words defined later ('twas 4:00, and the lithe and slimy (type of sundial-dwelling creature) did spin and make little holes in the grass around the sundial. All flimsy and miserable were the (type of bird), and the lost green pigs made a sound like a bellow and a whistle, with a sneeze in the middle). If you want Moser's nonsense, with the meaning that has been given to glork, keep it recognizable as containing the word glork. If not, make up your own nonsense rather than trying to translate it. Since it will not stay recognizable, ((random sentence generator|lets make up new nonsense)).