Postby janKipo » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:56 pm
Of the questions this piece raises, I will say only this about the broadest one: the views expressed seem more those of the Powers of the Present Age than of the person whose workman the author nominally is.
So, about the tp. The best way (and the first thing) to learn about tpis to get the rhythm of Subject li Verb e Object and then fill in the gaps, rather than proceeding word by word from left to right. This has gotten to 'li', but not generally to 'e', so verb phrases tend to run on into obscurity. And, to deal with it more or less simultaneously, the connections with the English often are too general to provide a good guide for getting things right. Line by line, then
'sin tawa toki pona' seems established, 'sin pi tp' would be an innovation in the language. I suppose "write anew" is part of translation, but 'ante e toki pi' is more clearly to the point, and 'tawa' ona' is missing. 'sona sina' is the object to 'pana' and so needs 'e'. "Welcome" (greeting not conventional reply to a thanks) seems odd here, where 'pona' "Thanks" seems called for.
"a good strong leader" misses both the notions of judge and justice in English. I am not sure how to do either of these and I suspect that the choice of expressions may be related to one's attitude toward the position set out in what follows, though the English title does allow that a judge can be unjust.
'pona' is awfully broad for "justice", which, while included, is probably not the first concept to come to mind. The conjoined verbs seem odd in questions though grammatically correct (the question mark is odd, however appropriate). 'pilin pona' (usual rant omitted) is the object (well, one of objects) of the 'pana's so needs 'e' in front (as noted). 'pilin ike' is the second, conjoined, object and so gets another 'e', rather than 'en'. (It is possible to argue that this is a case of mixed objects, not conjunction, but I think that case is thin, since the separations both hold in the same way as the whole.) There is, of course, nothing in the tp about retribution nor rewards (nor punishments). Not sure just what the floating 'pana' is doing.
The next English sentence is just not there in the tp, which is probably wise, since I am not sure how to do much of it ("definition", for example -- especially since none is given). But that leaves the 'ni' in the next tp sentence without an antecedent, or rather with a question, which may be worse. And so the explanation is launched directly, the 'toki' perhaps warning that more than one relevant sentence follows (a nice touch, that)
Why is the murderer a dead man from the start (I suppose this can mean "murderer" but 'jan pi moli jan' is safer)? 'ni kama la' means "before this", so presumably this should be 'ni li kama la' "If this happens". 'seme' is the object of 'wile' so needs 'e'.
I'm not sure how the next sentence works exactly (or doesn't, rather). It should be roughly 'sina wile e ni: ike li kama tawa jan [pi] moli [jan]' There are limits as to what you can pack into a tp verb phrase. Notice, in comparing with the English, there is nothing here about justice or even retribution, or being ready to demand anything, just flat desire to do harm (even revenge is only implicit here). Nothing about meeting justice either.
The quote is problematic. Who is 'ona'? each time -- there are no in context antecedents? Presumably (though not surely) 'pilin ike' is object of 'jo' and so need 'e'. But the same person who wants pain from someone (the speaker about the murderer?) also is the murderer. I don't see how to patch it and the English is off somewhere else altogether.
The story continues now with no indication that we are on a possible variant situation, a "what if". The 'ni' is out of place here. 'pona' is the object of 'pana and so ... . Much of the detail is lost here from the English.
'ni li kama la' 'ike' is the object of 'kama, ... .
'wile ni li pona' is not in the English and not in line with other parts of either version of the position.
