Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Saying "also" or "too" in Lojban

From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:06:21 +0300

SwiftRain wrote:
[re `I love you too']
> It's not however a matter of "what is the right way to translate
> this into Lojban." That is making la lojban into a code for
> English, which renders it rather pointless as a language.

Well, it isn't just English ... though I stop short of saying
that all natlangs say something to the effect of `too'.

> So think about it: Why do you feel the need to say "too"
> in this English sentence? What is the basic reality which
> is being expressed? Do you really need or want to say
> that your love is in addition to the other person's love?

Not exactly in addition to it (which is why {si'a} is indeed
more appropriate than {ji'a}). It is just that there is some
sort of pragmatic obligation to acknowledge the fact that a
similar statement, with the same predicate though different
arguments, has just been made, or perhaps the shared knowledge
that another similar situation obtains.

This is parallel to the use of `still'. `Is it raining?' would
sound odd to me if both I and the inquirer know that it was
raining half an hour ago; I'd expect `Is it still raining?'.

This is why the joke

Timothy <walking up to teacher's desk>: `I don't have no pencil!'
Teacher: `Oh, Timothy, "I have no pencil".'
Timothy: `You don't neither? Well, we're both in the same fix.'

has never sounded convincing to me: if the teacher had meant to
complain about being in the same fix as Timothy, I'd expect him
to say something to the effect of {si'a}.

> My reading of the situation is that the commonsense
> dialogue of
> 
> Person A: I love you.
> Person B: I love you.

(which actually sounds much more genuine than an exchange with
an elided `too' normally does)

> seems somehow uncreative in English, that a word must be added
> to the second speech in order to make it seem more genuine --
> as if it proves that Person B is not just a parrot.

Or more likely to prove that his statement is added to Person A's
and does not supersede it. (`I'm the one who has no pencil, [you
do have one].')

"Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" wrote:
> There's a German joke, that could have been invented by a user of
> poor lojban:
> A: Ich liebe Dich!
> B: Ich liebe mich auch!!

Wife: `You know, our neighbour kisses his wife every morning
when going to work. Why don't you do the same?'
Husband: `I like the idea, but don't you think it would be a
little impertinent? I barely know her.'

-- 
<fa-al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI
wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu>
(Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi)
Ivan A Derzhanski <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <[email-masked]>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences