Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Creativity: Poetry, music, comics, etc.
Kreado: Poezio, muziko, bildrakontoj, ktp.
janMato
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Contact:

Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janMato »

jan "Dilbert": [may it be thus] e ni: sina musi pona e tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu! mi pana e lipu mani pi nanpa ali tawa sina.

jan "Dogbert": a! kin la mi pana e lipu mani pi nanpa ali tawa sina.

jan "Dilbert": ken la tempo kama la mi en sina li pana e mani tawa sama kepeken ilo nanpa. pini la ni la mi pini e pali tawa pana lon tempo kama.

jan "Dogbert": pona a! ken la mi tu pana ala kin pana e pana?

jan "Dilbert": o toki ala e nasa!

Dilbert: Merry Christmas, here's a hundred bucks.
Dogbert: And here's a hundred bucks for you.
Dilbert: We could save another step by setting up an electronic transfer with an annual re-occuring option.
Dogbert: Excellent! Or we could not give gifts.
Dilbert: Hush your crazy talk.

Link: http://www.dilbert.com/2009-12-25/
Last edited by janMato on Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.
janKipo
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janKipo »

ALI not 'ala' -- 'i' for "immense" 'a' for "absent" wtf does 'lon o lon e ni' mean? "Present one, fetch this."? Just drop it? (oh, yeah, 'e' for "enormous")
'kin la' is OK, or 'mi kin' (but see above)
'mi en sina li pana' since subj is not just one of them.
'mi tu li pana' Not quite like the original, which isn't a question: just 'pana ala [kin?] e pana'
don't need 'sina' before 'o'
janMato
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Contact:

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janMato »

janKipo wrote:wtf does 'lon o lon e ni' mean? "Present one, fetch this."? Just drop it?
I'm looking for "May it be..." Saying "mi wile e ni:" is getting repetitive and isn't quite the the same. Similar issue to the one below. It's like a command, but not quite. Anyone translate "Let there be light" yet?
janKipo wrote:'mi en sina li pana' since subj is not just one of them.
I could swear I've heard it both ways, but I concur this rule sounds better to the ear.

Let's see if I can conjugate:

mi pana (1st person)
mi tu li pana (1st person dual)
mi en sina li pana (1st person inclusive dual)
mi en ona li pana (1st person exclusive dual)
mi mute li pana (1st person plural)

sina pana (2nd person)
sina tu li pana (2nd person dual)
sina en ona li pana (2nd person dual, alternate form)
sina mute li pana (2nd person plural)

ona li pana (3rd person)
ona tu li pana (3rd dual)
ona mute li pana (3rd more than 1)

jan li pana (indefinite pronoun, "one gives")

ona meli li pana.
ona meji li pana.
ona soweli li pana.
etc.
janKipo wrote:Not quite like the original, which isn't a question: just 'pana ala [kin?] e pana'
How would one make a suggestion? Dogbert is using polite speech, picking something in the middle of a command and an observation.

Command -> Suggestion -> Question -> Observation
Do it! -> You should do it -> Can you do it? -> It could be done.
o pali! -> ?? -> ken la o pali ala pali? -> sina ken e ni: sina pali.
janKipo
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janKipo »

Hortative/optative: 'o' plus full sentence "May you/he/ whatever ..." also "Let us ..." Wishing and urging. So:
'o sina musi pona e tenpo...'

Still have 'ala' for 'ali' in the second occurrence. a=absence, e=everything, i=infinity (pound, pound!)

Yeah, I've seen it both ways and wrong even from generally good users (e.g., me), but the rule is you can drop 'li' after 'mi' and 'sina' if either is the whole of the (one-word) subject, otherwise not.

Hmmm! Polite speech is is always a pain because it is so circuitous. "Would you mind passing the salt?" "I would like the salt," even "This food needs a bit of salt." I get the sense that tp is not into that sort of circumlocution but that the imperative forms are just not imperious (perfect equality, so not implicit power plays). Howmsoever, here Dogbert is just presenting a suggestion and I think 'ken la' probably does that adequately.
User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by jan Ote »

janMato wrote:Anyone translate "Let there be light" yet?
jan sewi Jawe li toki e ni: suno o lon! == Yahweh-god said: "[oh,] light - be!"
Gooogle says:
Results 1 - 8 of 8 for "suno o lon"
janMato
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Contact:

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janMato »

jan Ote wrote:suno o lon![/color] == Yahweh-god said: "[oh,] light - be!"
tenpo pi sike suno sin pi musi mute o lon!

May there be a very amusing New Year's day!
janKipo
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janKipo »

Or
'o suno li lon' "Let light exist" I find it odd to address light before it exists, so I go with this version. Fussy!

Similarly,
o tenpo sin pi sike suno li pona (tawa sina)

This use of 'o' owes a lot, I think, to Esperanto -u verbs, if you understand them (I don't think I do).
User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by jan Ote »

I don't see any problem with saying some "unlogic" sentences. It's not forbidden by a language itself.
"Let your kingdom come" (but it doesn't exist yet!)
"Light - be!" is a speech act changing the reality, so it can be unusual in its logic. Additionally, one can argue that according to some theologies 1) God is not limited by logic, 2) everything exists in God's mind before he creates it.

But 'o suno li lon' rises another type of problem, more serious for the language. By using "li" it creates a new category of imperative sentences. Using different construction. It's rather 'o: suno li lon.' than 'suno o! o lon!'
So, 'o: sina pali!' versus 'o pali!'

Now I believe that the most tokiponian translation would be:
jan sewi Jawe li toki e ni: "mi wile e ni: suno li lon."

I think that this is the proper use of imperative in toki pona:

Code: Select all

When person-X thinks 'I want Y to do something',
person-X can say to person Y: 'oh Y, do this!'
Vocative and imperative are tied, using the same word. So no other 'o'-wishes are grammatically correct. When we speak to a person, we can use 'o!', but we cannot use it just in any case we want to express our wishes:
'mi wile e ni:' =/= 'o'
User avatar
jan Josan
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: ma tomo Nujoka
Contact:

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by jan Josan »

I think to avoid calling light before it exists would require the philosophic: "o lon e suno!" the transformational "o kama e suno!" or the prosaic "o pali e suno!". The implication is then that another being/force is being called upon to do God's bidding.
janKipo
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Dilbert en tenpo suno pi kama sin pi jan Kolisu

Post by janKipo »

I'm not sure I follow the arguments here. I don't do Hebrew so I cannot comment on that Genesis text, but the Greek of LXX is clearly optative (subjunctive in Latin "fiat lux"). This is somewhat stronger (rhetorically, at least) than saying "I wish that..." and avoids the possibility of a truth-value issue, that is, it is performative not informative. It also requires no further agent, as an imperative does (although there are apparently others around in the original case: "Let us make man in our image" and the god in the first bit at least is Elohim, a plural noun). 'o lon e suno' and the like do presuppose another to receive and carry out the order (although one can, of course, give oneself orders), even if it is not the to be created thing itself. So, theologically (for that sort of theology), optative is best: it requires nothing other than God and makes God's will effective on its own: make a wish and it comes true, as it were. To be sure, this does tear 'o' away from the vocative, but keeps it in the performative realm (where the vocative also lies, in another way).
Post Reply