Re: JBO: CONLANG: Conlang Travelers's Phrasebook

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

>>>      .i do mo
>Since this is a stylized greeting question rather than a serious question to
>determine the listener's health or happiness, the vaguer the better.  Another
>good question might be "pei", or perhaps since it is a greeting "coipei".
Would "pei" not question the attitude to being greeted, or as Huckleberry Finn
would say, "Hello yourself and see how you like it."

> > > 7. Where is...
> >      .i ... zvati ma
> For these to work you'll need either "cu" before "zvati" or
> "ku" after each of the alternatives, otherwise you'll get
Yuck!  In my defence I will say that the fill-in-the-blank order is to blame.
This does highlight that "cu" is probably the most difficult particle to use
in jbobau.

> >> > 12. I don't speak [language X] very well.
> >>       .i mi na certu lenu tavla folo jbobau
> >  "mi na certu se jbobau" or even "mi na certu lojbo".  DOn't forget
> mi xlajbopli
> mi xlali lobypli
You really do love lujvo.  How about:

.i mi se jbobau fi'o na'e certu
   I am Lojbanic-be-languaged other-than expertly

> >> > 22. Our customs are very different from yours.
> >>       .i lo tcaci be mi'a lo tcaci be do frica mutce
> >Or, "mi'a do frica mutce lo tcaci"
Surely,
.i mi'a do mutce frica leka tcaci

> I agree with these, though I would say it more aphorismically
> loi jboklu na'o to'e donklu
> The Lojban culture is typically opposite your-culture.
"to'e" is a bit strong.  "na'e" would be more appropriate.  Pronominal tanru!?
.iisai

> >     .i lu ... li'u cmene mi
> Actual usage is  "mi se cmene zo/lu...li'u"
Surely that usage is influenced by English.  The gismu puts the name first and
I colour my usage correspondingly.

> >> 5. I am lost.
> >     .i mi na djuno ledu'u mi zvati makau
> Actual usage has been one of the following
> mi pu cirko mi
> mi se cirko
> cirko mi ti
I was very tempted to use "cirko" myself, but it has got to wrong in this
context.  It doesn't make any sense that one loses oneself at some place
because one will always have one's body.  The exception is astral
projection and the spirit becomes detached from the body and can't find the
way back.

> >> 11. Help!
> >      .i ko sidju
> >         You-imperative assist!
> The exclamation implies an attitudinal.  Command is one form of this.  But
> .e'enai
> (i'm unable!)
> .ii
> (fear!)
> .be'u
> (need/lack!)
> se'anai
> (depndency!)
> any of which perhaps combioned with  "nitcu" or "mi nitcu"
> would convey various senses of the non-command "Help!"
I think this was my weakest attempt, the meaning I was aiming at was something
like "Someone help me!", but the someone other than the (I imagine) assailant.

> >> 18. How much do we owe you...
> >      .i mi'a dejni ma do...
> Add attitudinal ".ei" after dejni, and probably other attitudinals
> after the words for meal/room/things-broken appropriate to the situation.
I don't think that ".ei" is necessary.  Obligation is implicit is the relation
of "dejni", why re-state it?

> >> 19. How much did you say it cost again?
> >--More--
> >      .i ke'o.
> jdima ki'a
> price (please clarify?)
Yes, it's difficult to know how closely to translate this without falling into
the trap of idiomatic expressions.  I thought of adding:
  .i ke'o fe ma go'i
What does:
  .i fe ki'a
mean?

> >      .i fi'idaido'u ki'e .i lenu mi'a vitke cu pluja mi'a .iku'i .ei mi'a
> >      xruti vo'a .iki'ubo lo vu selzu'e be mi'a vajni jo'u so'imei
> do'u not needed after "fi'idai
> since you are following only with more attitudinal and then a ".i", though
> the do'u does serve kind of as a comma between the attitudinals.
Yes, I thought that without "do'u" the "ki'e" would attach to the "dai", but
the jbobanlanli gives:
    ({<[fi'i dai] ki'e> DO'U} FA'O)
which I think is saying that "ki'e" is attached to "fi'idai".

ni'o co'omi'e dn.