Print

Print


On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 4/2/11, Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Wee! Translation exercise!
>
>> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and
>> moreover, why?"
>>
>> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then
>> it follows
>> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are
>> going to do,
>> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from
>> doing it?"
>
> Assà, mina velere clevere itan qouemverver, al oud, ett' ica velere ican
> nesser sissere moulvaniccere itan, al nasem jestem, etti annon mim velere
> clever al qoueiso!
>
> Ahe annon, al qoueiso. Ai gar nas nan scire itan qouem, nas moulvanicciendo
> itan, orim de avir logicam: men gar naaqouisqouem nan scire itan qouem, ne
> moulvanicciendo. Accò: ai gar naaqouisqouem scire itan qouem, nas
> eiomoulvanicciendo itan, orim de qoueio avir qouen ispent al qouisqouem
> etti ica velere sathare 'l ipendimentum avors nasser ver, etti nas nan
> poudire moulvaniccere itan?
>
> Ack! Well, that was a load of relative clauses to slog through... Nothing
> terribly convoluted, though. Just a long concatenation of connected
> clauses!
>
> Look, me wants to-understand it whoever, the same, and he wants it, us
> to-stop to-do it, the our doing (deed), and moreover I want to
> understand the wherefores!
>
> Yes moreover, the wherefore. If for we do-not know it what, we are-doing
> it, then but there-is a-logic: indeed for no-whoever doesn't know it
> what, they are-doing. Look: if for no-whoever knows it what, we
> will-be-doing it, then but why there-is such desirous the someone and
> he wants to-put the impediment against us against, and we not can to-do
> it?
>
> Loucarian doesn't have relative pronouns or relative clauses, so what
> would be a relative clause in English is an independent clause answering
> the interrogative pronoun that finished the previous clause:
>
> I want to know him who(?); that same man is enting the souq. Means I want
> to know who is entering the souq.
>
> There's no verbal morphology, so "moulvaniccere" means to do, I do as
> well as do! Word order tells you which is meant. Progressive forms are
> shown with what once was a participle: mim ajire itan = I (just) said it /
> I say it versus mim ajiendo itan = I am (now) saying it. Past time is
> shown by what was once the past participle: mim ajito itan = I said it.
> Future time is a compound of an old word for tomorrow plus the present
> tense: mim eioajiendo itan = I will be speaking / saying it.
>
> Emphatics are much in evidence: mi = I, mim = *I*; qouem = who,
> qouemverver = who*ever*. Many adpositions sourround the substantive when
> they indicate location as opposed to motion: en civam an = in the city;
> en civam = (motion) within the city. So, avors naser ver means "location
> against us" as opposed to avors nasser, which means something like "acting
> against us". So an ipendimentum can be a stationary block, or it can be
> an adversarial force depending on the adposition used.
>
>>
>> In Kēlen:
>>
>> sele jakīña ien sele jatēla ien sema jakīña ien ñi
>> lēim mōrre mo makēñ ī tōkēñ;
>>
>> lerāe; tōkēñ; tō wā selte jatēla ien ñalta jāo
>> tō-jāo wā sema mo mawae
>> ī; tō wā sema jatēla ien rēha ñalta jāo tō sema
>> jakesāo mo manahan ien
>> ñi lēim mapāsre jē rēha ñalta jāo tōkēñ;
>>
>> An interlinear, more or less:
>>
>> to.1SG wish REL to.1SG knowledge REL to.3SG wish REL do 1PC
>> stopped to who also why;
>
> Ah, for the want of a relative system, Loucarian could be trimmed down
> to half its verbosity!
>
> Padraic

Ah, but there are bonus points for verbosity, too!
-S

-- 
Sylvia Sotomayor

The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.