Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready?
Saul Epstein 
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:48:09 -0500

From: Rob Zook <rzook*informix,com>
Date: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 12:56 PM


>At 10:05 AM 7/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote:

>
>>In addition, we might have a sort of "requestive" as a counterpart
to
>>the imperative. So <kroika> ~ "Stop!" while *<kroicul> ~ "Please,
>>stop."
>
>That was behind my idea of adding the -jia suffix. I just didn't
think
>of calling it a "requestive" :). So, maybe we could say:
>
><th'nidroimajia jitokh'hi beita'a>
>"Please, may I ask a personal question, Beta."

Ah, I'd rather not. That "please" in my example was a paraphrase. I
meant "requestive" in the sense that it would be a polite imperative.
Not for commands, but for requests, directed at one's audience. So,
Gaudy here could preface his final question with "tell me," which
could either be a forceful <droika>, or a polite *<droijia> (or
*<droicul>).

>>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>.
>
>Yes, a question that would breach the traditional bounds of
>privacy.  And you mean "question" in terms of "asking a question"
>as opposed to "inquiring after someone's health", or "requesting
>help", right?

Only as opposed to "requesting help," depending on the form of the
health inquiry. I see that as a statement of ignorance, with an
implied request to have the ignorance informed. (I'm partly motivated
here by the apparent etymology of <nidroi> as <ni droi>.)

>>>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.
>
>Do you think that we need more than just <pu ci (statement) ic>?

It probably depends on the complexity of the statement...

>>So, is this where we are?
>>
>>   G: qa th'nidroima jidokh'hi beita'a
>>   B: s'ninidroima godi'a
>>   G: qa s'izgezu ibumusko
>
>I think, except for the intensively reduplicated nidroi in Beita's
>reply. Why does that need to be there?

No need. I did it to reflect the underlying "of course," more intense
than "you may," or a simple "yes." (I also considered duplicating
the -<ma> instead, but I feel like that's too literal somehow. I think
the reduplicative process should operate on an otherwise "finished"
word, rather than parts.)

--
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