From noras@cox.net Thu Jul 17 15:04:27 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakemtao01.cox.net ([68.1.17.244])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19dGrS-0004h1-00
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:04:27 -0700
Received: from nora.cox.net ([68.100.92.1]) by lakemtao01.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP
          id <20030717220355.PFZE7142.lakemtao01.cox.net@nora.cox.net>
          for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>;
          Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:03:55 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030717180543.030ad030@pop.east.cox.net>
X-Sender: noras@pop.east.cox.net
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:07:43 -0400
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
From: Nora LeChevalier <noras@cox.net>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Some questions
In-Reply-To: <20030716233446.59270.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030716222752.GB4093@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 408
X-Approved-By: jkominek@miranda.org
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: noras@cox.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners


At 04:34 PM 7/16/03 -0700, la xorxes wrote:

>--- Rob Speer <rspeer@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:19:28PM +0200, Yuval Harel wrote:
> > > 1) I've noticed people are signing their posts with signatures such as
> > > "mu'o mi'e iuv?l". Does that not defy the meaning of {mu'o}? If
> > > attitudinals are allowed to be attached to {mu'o} it no longer marks the
> > > end of the utterance. When used in speech, it seems that the listener 
> must
> > > infer where the attached attitudinal list ends from context.
> >
> > An interesting point - perhaps it should be "mi'e rab.spir mu'o". But I
> > think that, as non-computers, we understand that someone saying "mu'o"
> > at least gets to finish the sentence.
>
>{mu'o} is a COI, not a UI. You don't have a complete parse until you hear
>a name or a {do'u} after it. It doesn't by itself mark the end of an
>utterance. The construction that it heads marks the end of the utterance.
>A different issue is whether it makes sense for {mu'o} to be a COI or
>whether it would be better placed in UI, given its function.
>
>mu'o mi'e xorxes

I opine that it should remain a COI.  If you are, say, a dispatcher talking 
to multiple people, you may need to indicate after the mu'o just who is 
being mu'o-ed (others may be being be'e-ed or something).


-- 
mi'e noras                                             noras@cox.net
Nora LeChevalier