Is this a Lakota sentence?

[cantemaza]

Just out of curiosity, who was it agin that asked Albert WhiteHat how to 
tranlsate this?  Was it done orally or in written form like an e-mail or 
something? 
I'm asking because I do not see the "we" in the "we make things good."   
This would be unhduwaste (Damakota do!) for we/you and I and not 
ohduwaste which does by itself have the meaning of changing something 
into the positive or haviong a positive effect on something/someone or 
making something good.  If someone were to ask me (and they haven't plus 
I am very young)  to translate "Younger brother, we make the world 
better" I would say

"Misun, maka sitomniya unhduwaste ye/do."

Just my two cents.

Hehanyedan epe kte do.

-Cantemaza de miye do!

Koontz John E wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 jurga at ou.edu wrote:
>  
>
>>I just asked Mr. White Hat for help with this sentence, and his
>>translation was:
>>
>>Younger  brother, we make things good around the world,
>>
>>or,
>>
>>Younger brother, we make the world better.
>>    
>>
>
>Orignal:
>
>(correcting to yelo from yalo)
>
>"Misun,    oglu    waste   maka   sitomni    yelo!"
>[misuN'    oglu'   was^te' makxa' sito'mni   yelo']
> y-bro VOC fortune good    world  all around DECLm
>
>Alfred Tueting comments:
>  
>
>>With all due respect for Mr. W-H's competence, this translation seems to
>>be in need of linguistical elucidation, doesn't it?.
>>    
>>
>
>I was a little surprised at this comment at first reading.  I don't think
>Mr. White Hat's linguistic (speech) competence has ever been faulted by
>anyone I know, though some have grumbled about his linguistic (technical)
>practice (in orthography, as I recall), if folks will forgive me using the
>word linguistic in two different senses in one sentence.  I think,
>however, that Alfred meant only that the rendition above needed
>"linguistic elucidation," to explain how such a variant translation had
>come about.
>
>As far as elucidating the original, I think he and Bruce have essentially
>already done that.  I'm still not clear if the sentence is idiomatic,
>though idiomaticity must be a variable and moving target in a language as
>widely distributed and lively as Lakota.  Maybe some places oglu was^te is
>the usual expression for 'fortun(ate)'?
>
>I suspect this alternative approach to rendering the sentence results from
>trying to make sense of the unusual aspects of the original sentence
>already noted, i.e., the unusual word for oglu for '(good) fortune' and
>writing yelo as yalo under the influence of English spelling.  This last
>glitch, in particular, adds a causative or verb of motion, if taken at
>face value, and I think that leads to the causative in Mr. White Hat's
>English rendition.  But, if it's a causative, what is causativized?  In
>what person is the resulting construction to be construed and,
>pragmatically, translated?  In essence, I think Mr. White Hat is trying to
>be faithful "to the letter" of a fairly obscure text.
>
>So, to adapt an old computer science maxim and raise it to the level of a
>scientific principle, my explanation of the difference is "Garbled in,
>garbled out."
>
>
>
>.
>
>  
>