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.