unforum

[unagi]

Re: Ch 18 Translation!

[Retzglaran]

Re: Ch 18 Translation!

[Gerri]

Oh.... looks like I got here too late.

I'm not on vacation or anything, but unfortunately all my essays are due by next week, so that's why I haven't posted in a week... Figures that with my luck, there's only an artifact in Singapore when I stop checking the forums. -_-...

[chaobell]

That labyrinth drawing is weird. Look how many exits it has. I doubt that's a mistake.

[thebruce]

when you guys decide on correct translation, can you update the wiki page plztnx? =)

[sapagoo]

[Retzglaran]

[Weezel]

[unagi]

[Junesun]

Re: Ch 18 Translation!

[unagi]

Re: Ch 18 Translation!

[Retzglaran]

Junesun, you may be right (and I may be crazy...)

Going by the literal translation, here's how I broke down the words (reference source: English-Esperanto Dictionary, by J.C. O'Connor, PhD.)

sangigo:
sang = blood
ig = causing to be in a state or condition
o = noun

ergo, "blood condition" (bloodtype? bloodline?)

for ŝanĝiĝon:
ŝanĝ = change
iĝ = to become
o = noun
n = object of the sentence

ergo, "the Change" (to become change? a transformation?)

Now, typos are altogether possible, but I can only work with what I have been given, without changing the source to fit the result. It is confusing, however, since these two words happen to be spelled the same without the diacriticals. Thus, dilemma.
Anyways, that's my stance on it. I didn't mean to cause trouble. (Even if this is supposed to be what we recite before labyrinth events, and might be important to translate right, otherwise, hello Neopangaea! )

[Junesun]

The key to understanding multi-part Esperanto words is to add the meaning of each component consecutively, not to look at it from a bird's perspective.

For sangigo, this would mean:
sang- -> blood, to bleed
-ig- -> to make, cause to be ==> together: to make bleed, to cause something to be blood
-o -> noun ==> the making bleed, the act of causing something to be blood
... It just sounds weird to me

For ŝanĝiĝo, this would mean:
ŝanĝ- -> change, the change (as in the changing of something)
-iĝ- -> to become / get; (also for passive) ==> together: to be changed
-o -> noun ==> the change (as in being changed)

The importance of adding in all the meanings consecutively can be demonstrated using the words "arbareto" and "arbetaro":

arbareto
arbo -> tree
-ar- -> collection ==> collection of trees = forest
-et- -> small ==> small collection of trees = small forest
-o -> noun

arbetaro
arbo -> tree
-et- -> small ==> small tree
-ar- -> collection ==> collection of small trees
-o -> noun

--

As for "estigis" vs. "estiĝis", it's a tough call because either way the language will be strange:

estigis literally translates to "caused to be", and already from the -ig- you can tell that this verb has to be transitive, that is, it has to have an object following it. However, "unua" is not an object because it is missing the -n, so you can't translate "the oracle created the first...".

estiĝis however translates to "came into being", which can't be used with an extension like "the first to see...".

I believe that the writer intended either "estis" (was) or "iĝis" (became). Over-use of ig and iĝ is common among Esperanto speakers, though usually the meaning isn't affected much.

--

I believe that to be sure we're doing the right thing, the oath should be recited in Esperanto. If this ritual is supposed to make the worlds align, then presumably the other worlds will need to say the exact same words, because a choice to use whatever language turned out to be the predominant one in your world doesn't have to be the same in the other worlds. Remember the travellers wrote that they always ran into communication problems and used Esperanto for this reason because they couldn't predict what language we'd speak.

[Oriza]

Good idea, June.

In any case-- for the Spanish translation, I just said 'heritage', though, so hope that doesn't cause a problem.

[Retzglaran]

sangigo = bloodshed?