From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Sep 06 09:17:59 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkKRD-00014p-Bz for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:17:59 -0700 Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkKR8-00013u-TV for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:17:58 -0700 Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n86GHjWJ021211 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:17:45 -0400 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id d.cc9.5a3ba81c (39332) for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:17:40 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:17:40 EDT Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: let us To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cc9.5a3ba81c.37d53aa4_boundary" X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-archive-position: 2212 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --part1_cc9.5a3ba81c.37d53aa4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2009 09:51:40 Eastern Daylight Time, selckiku@gmail.com writes: > Another way to think about it is that "mi" and "do" are just another > pair of assignable prosumti, just ones with an ordinary conventional > assignment when not given explicit meaning, and also with some special > powers and qualities. For instance in this case "do" was assigned in > order to make use of the specific imperative mechanism we have with > do/ko. It can be even more useful to reassign "mi", which allows you > to use the whole attitudinal palette to paint anyone's voice: > > mi'e gerku > Speaking for a dog. > This just seems like a wrong interpretation of "mi'e" to me. My understanding of "mi'e" is that whatever follows it is a way of naming the speaker who says "mi'e". Thus "mi'e gerku" means "I'm called Gerku". "Speaking for a dog", OTOH, means that you are giving voice or representing someone/something else, namely some dog, and has nothing to do with giving a name to the speaker. Can someone else shed more light on this? stevo --part1_cc9.5a3ba81c.37d53aa4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a messag= e dated 9/6/2009 09:51:40 Eastern Daylight Time, selckiku@gmail.com writes= :


Another way to think ab= out it is that "mi" and "do" are just another
pair of assignable prosumti, just ones with an ordinary conventional
assignment when not given explicit meaning, and also with some special
powers and qualities.  For instance in this case "do" was assigne= d in
order to make use of the specific imperative mechanism we have with
do/ko.  It can be even more useful to reassign "mi", which allows= you
to use the whole attitudinal palette to paint anyone's voice:

mi'e gerku
Speaking for a dog.


This just seems like a wrong interpretation of "mi'e" to me.  My= understanding of "mi'e" is that whatever follows it is a way of naming th= e speaker who says "mi'e".  Thus "mi'e gerku" means "I'm called Gerku= ".

"Speaking for a dog", OTOH, means that you are giving voice or represe= nting someone/something else, namely some dog, and has nothing to do with= giving a name to the speaker.

Can someone else shed more light on this?

stevo --part1_cc9.5a3ba81c.37d53aa4_boundary--