dave5dave5dave | Re: Freezing the basic grammar

• Autor: dave5dave5dave
• Tema: Re: Freezing the basic grammar
• Data: 2006-05-07 04:41
• Mesaje: 2146 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

--- In LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com, "wilko dijkhuis"
<w.dijkhuis@...> wrote:
>
> dave5dave5dave complains: That's all well and good, but what is one to
> do with a sentence like this when translating?

Not complaining. My scope is always on the real application of a
language and when I translated content from Wikipedia into LFN I found
the lack of vocabulary to be an obstacle. I don't mind there not being
a new word for something each and every time (ie affixing two existing
words to represent a word in another language that is a standalone
word), but not being able to find an LFN equivalent for a large number
of words was a hindrance. I don't mind if the word in a language for
town is just 'small city' for example, as long as it has been decided
that way and can be found in the dictionary. That's mostly just
because the dictionary needs more English vocab though, not because
LFN has a problem.

>
> (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.

It's not too poor to express thoughts, but there's the problem of
legal and economic terminology for example. Don't forget that an IAL
is not just to be used for chatting, but also for legal use and will
be consulted later on in judicial precedents and whatnot. In those
sorts of documents there can be no room for error. Your translation is
quite good though. One always has to make sure that the context is
clear enough after 'el vole' for example (which you've done), because
without it it could mean just about anything - it wants, he wants, she
wants, his wish, its wish, her wish, etc.

>
> **************************
>
> 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)?
>