so'o pinka be ledo selfanva

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!C.J.Fine>]

             Nick:

             I very much enjoyed reading your Aesop translations, and
             on the whole I think you have expressed them well. I have
             a few comments to offer, some of which probably reflect
             my lack of understanding.

             General:

             I notice you often use "noi" in cases where I would be
             inclined to use tanru. eg. "lo lorxu noi xagji" as
             opposed to "lo xagji lorxu". This is a perfectly valid
             (and indeed more precise) form of expression - I just
             wanted to point out the possibility, and also to wonder
             on whether the original Greek wouldn't have used lots of
             participles, giving a structure if not a sense closer to
             that obtained with tanru. I notice it particularly in
             contrast to your very elegant solution to the place
             structures of "bacru" and "tavla": "lenu tavla be da be'o
             bacru de" (though I can't help wondering if the places
             are wrong, if you need to do this).

             I wonder about your use of the gadri "le", "lo" and
             "lei". What struck me particularly is the variation
             between your titles and your text.
                  "me le lorxu .e lei vanyjba
                  .i lo lorxu..."
             This certainly reflects English usage (if you treat "le"
             as "the" and "lo" as "a", as we often do for short) -
             though you do not in fact use "the" in your English
             titles. But I wonder if it is a good pattern. It seems to
             me, that you do have a specific fox in mind, and "le"
             would be more appropriate in the text of the fable.
              This is even clearer with the crab:
                  "... lo canldrdanlrkandre le mamta cu se tavla ..."
             I find it difficult to make sense of the lo/le
             distinction here, unless it really does reflect the
             indefinite/(relatively) definite distinction in English.
              Again, your use of "lei" suggests to me that you are
             more or less using it for a plural: "the ants" are surely
             some specific ants ("le manti"), not some part of the
             mass of all ants ("lei manti"). Similarly "loi vanyjba";
             and in your morals at the end of the fables, I would
             prefer "lo pajni be lo prenu be'o cusku" to "lei ...
             lei...".

             "lego'i" - strictly, this means "the individual(s)
             described as satisfying the previous bridi", so for
             example in "Fox and grapes" it doesn't mean "the fox" but
             "the wanter to get them and not able to get". In general
             these will be extensionally the same, but I'm a little
             dubious about this as a general technique.

             More specific comments:
             Fox and grapes:
             "vimcu vo'a"?  "subtracted himself from ..."? I think
             this is a poor choice of brivla. (I'm only guessing
             "vo'a" means self - I still haven't found my cmaste).













             I wonder about your alternation of "naka'e cpacu" and
             "na'eka'e xagri'a" - I can make sense of both, and I'm
             not yet used to negation, so there may be a good reason
             for the difference that I'm missing.

             Crab and mother: I thought that the modified gismu on the
             front of a le'avla was just to give a general semantic
             area - it seems unwieldy and contrary to the spirit of
             le'avla to shove two of them on there. I agree with you
             about ablatives.

             "mosra" not "morsa".

             Crow and fox:
             I think you missed out an abstractor "noi ba'o kavbu lo
             rectu"

             "...noda fau ... turni roda ..." - I'm not quite sure
             what it means to use the same variable differently
             quantified in the same sentence, but I have a strong
             feeling that it is clearer to use different ones.

             Tortoise and Hare:
             Surely you mean "resprtestudine" don't you? (zo'o)

             "na'e gunka jundi" - "non-workingly attended"? I would
             not use "gunka" here. I would prefer  "kazvajni",
             "terzukte", "selmukti", or even "fuzme" - or just "na'e
             jundi".

             "le se cusku cu xusra ve cusku ledu'u..." "the thing-
             expressed assertingly-is-a-form-of-expression of the-
             statement-that" (unless the place structure of "cusku"
             has changed since my list). I'm not entirely sure what
             this means, because I'm not certain of the meanings of
             the places. Is it appropriate for the x2 to be "lu ...
             li'u" or "la'elu ... li'u"?
             Either way, a statement of the form "le se broda cu ve
             broda" is likely to be a little suspect - I'm sure there
             are cases where it makes sense, because it happens that
             the same kind of thing can fill both places (though I
             can't think of any off-hand) but the x2 and x4 of "cusku"
             are surely very different animals?
              It appears to me that EITHER
                  "lo se cusku" is a piece of text, utterance etc, in
             which case "cusku" has no place to express the meaning,
             and you'll have to use something like "le se cusku cu
             xusra ledu'u ..."
             OR   "lo se cusku" is a meaning, content etc, in which
             case you probably want "le ve cusku cu xusra ve cusku
             ledu'u..." (and all the people who have written things
             like "la fred. cu cusku lu ..." are wrong).

             I'm a little uncertain about comparing ("vlimau")  a "se
             ckaji" and a "nu trocu" - aren't they rather different
             kinds of thing? Similarly, the hare neglects the race
             because of his 'ka sutra', while the tortoise is aware of












             his 'ni masno' - while you can certainly make a case for
             these different abstractors, I think you might improve
             the parallel (zu'u) by using the same one both sides.

             I hope you will take these remarks constructively, as
             they are intended.
                       Colin          (c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk)