Re: Final SevTrek 2 translation and Transcriptions (Re: Is the Sev Trek 2 translation ready?) Saul Epstein Wed, 8 Jul 1998 16:33:39 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 3:35 PM >At 01:48 PM 7/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > >>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. > >Hmmm..,so saying nidroijia(nidroicul... whatever) would be >telling yourselve politely to ask? Something like that, yeah. >>>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 as >>.) > >So your saying that a "not tell" = "ask", etymologically? That >seems kind of odd to me. But very natural, I'm afraid. I doubt I would have come up with it on my own, but they're in the dictionary that way. However, if you think of an answer as knowledge, and the question it answers as ignorance in the absence of that knowledge, it sort of works... >>>>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 - 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.) > >Ok, I'll buy that, so why don't we go with the version above. Going once... >However, before we submit the second translation into vulcan, I suggest >we get the transcription argument resolve once and for all. Then, ask >the SevTrek author to reissue the translation of #1 in whatever method >we decide on. Actually, I did the graphic for #1, and I have one ready for #2. (Photoshop 5 includes a miniature word-processor and puts text on special layers that can be edited AS text. The graphic for #1 took me a couple hours to get just right in Photoshop 4; #2 only took half an hour in 5, and changes should only take minutes...) http://www,jccc,net/~sepstein/vald/sevtrek002,gif As they need modification in any way, I can implement it, and John's been great about mounting new versions. So, while I too would like the matter of transcription settled, I think we'll be OK. >I suggest we simply vote on it. These are the possibilities, that I've >seen so far: > >1. Original ZC notation unaltered. >2. Original Epstein notation as posted on his page. >3. Epstein notation plus ISA characters when the medium allows it. >4. Epstein notation plus "long vowels"+h notation, with - to seperate > an otherwise ambiguous pair of Hs. >5. Mixture of ZC and Epstein notations. Option 5 amounts to starting over, because the nature of the mixture would have to be determined... >Please, everyone speak up and vote for one of those choices or offer >another choice. > >I vote for #4. Since we may not have any "long" vowel phonemes, #4 should perhaps be something like "E notation with only 'short' vowel signs (but using for <^> and for ). That would limit h-sequences to a single context, eliminating the need for a special-function hyphen. OR, that can be #6. ;-) I don't think I'll vote just yet, but in a plug for #3 (or at least for the use of special characters as the medium allows), notice that as the use of double-letter signs increases, the amount of space a piece of text occupies also increases, and legibility decreases. -- 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