Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4004291.GPfs8n1fLZ@caracal>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2csEZWF3QqXMW7dnVx28yCt6GWe60buRHMSd5t1yyXSaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5427DCE6.9020900@gmx.de>
	<4004291.GPfs8n1fLZ@caracal>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:40:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPnNWfayhynFPtBiNPnUiipsZ45vjqZvy-TD-hd7LPgUSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb2082c55598d050432bb6e
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--e89a8fb2082c55598d050432bb6e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 29 Sep 2014 01:40, "Pierre Abbat" <phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:03:18 selpa'i wrote:
> > As for old-{voi}, I agree it's utterly useless.
>
> I don't think so. It has its place, though I don't see much use for it.
{lo
> rangutano cu me lo remsmismani voi se kerfa lo xunre bunre} allows an ape
to
> still be an orangutan even if it's albino.

On further consideration, I agree it's not useless. But

(1) For every relative, noi, poi, ne, pe, no'u, po'u (that list from memory
-- hope it's right) a nonveridical counterpart would be at least as useful
as voi--poi is.

(2) It's nonveridical noi that would figure in a logical expansion of le
and English definite descriptions, so is a candidate for usefulest.

Selpa'i has suggested a UI for (non)veridicality. The snag with that is
that you'd not want the unmarked default to be "unspecified veridicality",
and usually you'd want the unmarked default to be Veridical, but sometimes,
specifically when the phrase has an identificatory function, you want the
unmarked default to be Nonveridical. So this leads me to think that maybe
better than a UI would be a nonveridical poi'i, or maybe a nonveridical
poi'i that includes co'e in its meaning. You could even use /voi/ for that,
tho not at the cost of depriving poi'i of a shorter allomorph.

I'm kind of brainstorming here, not presenting a decidedly optimal change.

--And.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--e89a8fb2082c55598d050432bb6e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 29 Sep 2014 01:40, &quot;Pierre Abbat&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:phma@b=
ezitopo.org">phma@bezitopo.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:03:18 selpa&#39;i wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; As for old-{voi}, I agree it&#39;s utterly useless.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I don&#39;t think so. It has its place, though I don&#39;t see much us=
e for it. {lo<br>
&gt; rangutano cu me lo remsmismani voi se kerfa lo xunre bunre} allows an =
ape to<br>
&gt; still be an orangutan even if it&#39;s albino.<br>
 <br>
On further consideration, I agree it&#39;s not useless. But</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">(1) For every relative, noi, poi, ne, pe, no&#39;u, po&#39;u=
 (that list from memory -- hope it&#39;s right) a nonveridical counterpart =
would be at least as useful as voi--poi is.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">(2) It&#39;s nonveridical noi that would figure in a logical=
 expansion of le and English definite descriptions, so is a candidate for u=
sefulest.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Selpa&#39;i has suggested a UI for (non)veridicality. The sn=
ag with that is that you&#39;d not want the unmarked default to be &quot;un=
specified veridicality&quot;, and usually you&#39;d want the unmarked defau=
lt to be Veridical, but sometimes, specifically when the phrase has an iden=
tificatory function, you want the unmarked default to be Nonveridical. So t=
his leads me to think that maybe better than a UI would be a nonveridical p=
oi&#39;i, or maybe a nonveridical poi&#39;i that includes co&#39;e in its m=
eaning. You could even use /voi/ for that, tho not at the cost of depriving=
 poi&#39;i of a shorter allomorph.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;m kind of brainstorming here, not presenting a decided=
ly optimal change.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.</p>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--e89a8fb2082c55598d050432bb6e--