From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Nov 07 08:05:39 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EZ9Uw-0000kv-4O
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:05:30 -0800
Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EZ9Uu-0000ko-UM
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:05:29 -0800
Received: (qmail 73929 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Nov 2005 16:05:27 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=EVMMc/yXuK5oh+3hBdk2NZQfC05Zzj+aHW2wJB95avNJdG8zCbDpgkt8YH/JBECKSwSEq05izZ2MTWsUhF0gUHL3n0Ck1/iS2vZtaqd3d83w/kaX5dNRkeWSDdsTFTtrYyhUkAdakGeo+7+oXJlDCJC6R5y/wfe6pvW5dEr4+i0=  ;
Message-ID: <20051107160527.73927.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.88.34.50] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:05:27 PST
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:05:27 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Exact translation of the pronoun "we"
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <1487208813.20051107212945@mail.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-archive-position: 10759
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

-- Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru> wrote:

> Dear Lojbanists,
> 
> is there an EXACT translation of English
> pronoun "we"
> (the semantics of which is something like:
> me, the speaker, and AT LEAST one other person
> somehow related to me)?

More importantly, somehow related to the present
conversation situation: as cospeaker, listener, 
topic, or bystander. English "we" does not
distinguish among the possible accompaniers of
me: listeners alone, third parties alone, or both
second and third parties.  The closest is
probably {ma'a} which takes in both second and
third parties.  It would work if we allowed that
one or the other of these might reduce to 0 (a
not unheard of kind of case). Or the "and" be
treated as "or".

> neither mi, nor mi'e do fit:
> 
> mi        
> KOhA3    
> me
> pro-sumti: me/we the speaker(s)/author(s);
> identified by self-vocative
> 
> mi'a
> KOhA3
> we, not you
> pro-sumti: me/we the speaker(s)/author(s) &
> others unspecified, but not you, the listener
> 
> 
> we can see from these definitions that both mi
> and mi'a could mean "me", which is far from
> what "we" means :)



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.