Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready?
Saul Epstein 
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:05:41 -0500

Quotes from: Rob Zook <rzook*informix,com>
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 9:52 AM


>At 10:14 PM 6/25/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote:

>
>>As you suggested in your last post on the subject, <jidokh> should
>>take -<hi> in the first sentence, as the direct (or Accusative)
>>object of <nidroi>. However, I'm not sure the word needs to be there
>>at all. In English (and other IE languages) we use "to ask" to refer
>>to inquiries AND requests, but this is hardly necessary. If <nidroi>
>>specifically refers to the act of asking a question (as opposed to
>>asking a favor, for which there could be an unrelated word) we could
>>leave out a direct object in this case, and the sentence could mean
>>something like "Can I inquire..."


     [...]

>I had meant the -jia to be a kind of ? in the middle of the verb for
>a [permissive] value positive or negative. But I guess we don't need
>to have that kind of structure if we can say:
>
>qa th'nidroima "[Is it true?] I may ask"
>
>I think then that:
>Gaudy: qa th'nidroima jitokh'hi Beta'a
>
>May be best to distinguish from forms of askings like you meantioned:
>
>qa th'nidroima [favor]'hi
>qa th'nidroima [forgiveness]'hi

Ah, yes. Good. My point there (which I reprinted above) was to suggest
an even sharper distinction between the two kinds of asking. So
<th'nidroi> ~ "I inquire" but *<th'rikwest> ~ "I request" -- whether
compliance, attention, forgiveness, a hug, whatever.

In addition, we might have a sort of "requestive" as a counterpart to
the imperative. So <kroika> ~ "Stop!" while *<kroicul> ~ "Please,
stop."

I can see including <jitokh> if it means a specific kind of
question -- in this case a "personal" one. The pattern I've been
abstracting from the ZC implies that "question" in general is
<nidroi>.

   [...]

>I think that does work as a valid argument. In English it sounds
>a little awkward: "If it is permitted then may I ask a question? It
>is permitted. Therefore, 'are you IBM compatable'?".


I was actually aiming for something that would sound awkward in
English. <g>

>However, I think the logic of the argument seems valid, and I like
the
>idea of splitting the argument up between two speakers this way.


Good. I just have it in the back of my mind that the Formal should
have structures for dealing with "everyday" kinds of statements and
exchanges that aren't normally logical in the seriously symbolic
sense. This was an experiment in that direction.

>Did we talk about <yara> before and I forgot, or is this something
>new you want to add?


I just made it up, and looking back at it, I disapprove. ;-) We have
to much <a> and <r> as it is. And I don't know that it needs adding, I
just don't know how to represent an assignment operation.

So, is this where we are?

   G: qa th'nidroima jidokh'hi beita'a
   B: s'ninidroima godi'a
   G: qa s'izgezu ibumusko


--
from Saul Epstein
locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus
"Surakri' ow'phatsur the's'hi the's'tca'; the's'pharka
    the's'hi suraketca'."
                                        -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at