wilko dijkhuis | Re: Freezing the basic grammar

• Autor: wilko dijkhuis (“vilkoos”)
• Tema: Re: Freezing the basic grammar
• Data: 2006-05-06 19:34
• Mesaje: 2145 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

dave5dave5dave complains: That's all well and good, but what is one to
do with a sentence like this when translating?

(The purpose of OPEC is:) the coordination and unification of the
petroleum policies of [its] member countries and the determination of
the best means for safeguarding their interests, individually and
collectively;
[devising] ways and means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in
international oil markets with a view to eliminating harmful and
unnecessary fluctuations;
[giving due regard] at all times to the interests of the producing
nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income to the
producing countries; an efficient, economic and regular supply of
petroleum to consuming nations, and a fair return on their capital to
those investing in the petroleum industry."

According to dave5dave5dave LFN is to poor to express this thoughts.
Here is what I would make of this horrible fragment.

**************************

La Organiza de Pais acel Produi Petrolio (OPPP) ave la puntas seguente.

1) El vole armoni la politica petrolio de se membros,
   per garde se interesas individal e coliedal.

2) El vole far constante la preso petrolio en mercatos mundal,
   per preveni la cambia-de-preso feri o non-nesesada.

Entre se la OPPP far esta, el vole garda la interesas de tota.
Donce:
la produores , el vole dona los un sede stable,
la consumores, el vole dona los un furnia regula, sufisinte e economial,
la investores, el vole dona los un profita justa.

*************************

As you can see the meaning of the horrible fragment can be expressed
in LFN very well.
To my taste the LFN version is clearer and more elegant (LFN makes the
horror go away).

The trick is to translate semantically.
- Find the meaning of the fragment
- verbalize this meaning in LFN from scratch
  (Forget the syntactic surface structure of, and the words used in,
  the original fragment. Do not try to be literal).

You get stuck, when you try to translate syntactically or word by word.
LFN is too "poor" and "different" to facilitate this.
You would get the same problem if you translated the above
legalise-English text into basic-English of Ogden.

Those who have problems with semantic translation might try to use
basic-English of Ogden.
- translate into basic-English of Ogden, if needed simplify sentence
structure
  (e.g. verbalize the meaning of the fragment in Ogden English).
- translate more or less word by word into LFN

I find this non-literal or semantic translating very entertaining.
It can produce very nice results also
(e.g. see:
http://members.home.nl/w.dijkhuis/LFN_tts/misc/2320_LFN_tst_La_Revolta_Frans.htm
)

************************

I am for keeping LFN small and free from complicated compounded sentences.
This makes LFN easy to learn and read.
It also discourages horrible language use (see the above fragment).
As far as I am concerned, being easy and horror free is an excellent
feature of LFN.

************************

QUESTION for the LFN grammar gurus

Given the noun armonia (harmony), I want to make a verb harmonize.
The rule is:
- remove the last vowel (this gives armoni)
- add an I (this gives us armonii).

Is this really what is meant?
Or, should I remove all vowels at the end (resulting in armon) and
then add an I (producing armoni)?