Return-Path: Resent-From: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Resent-Message-Id: <9107092100.AA15199@relay1.UU.NET> 15 Jul 90 13:54 EDT Message-Id: From: John Cowan Subject: Three new proposed cmavo To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 10:05:08 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2] Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 16:26:13 EDT Resent-To: John Cowan Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jul 9 17:16:07 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin From cowan Mon Jul 9 15:22:28 1990 Subject: Three new proposed cmavo To: lojban-list@snark.uu.net Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 15:22:28 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2] First, thanks and *blush* to lojbab for his accolade. 1) Proposed cmavo: ju'a (UI), a general observational. "I know by some unspecified means", "I have reasons which I'm not mentioning". This is like the other observationals, and specifies the source of the speaker's knowledge -- except that this one doesn't specify. This is mainly useful in questions: go'i ju'apei = "How do you know that?" 2) Proposed cmavo: fai (GOhA), an anaphoric reference to the current bridi. This completes the set of GOhA cmavo, which is currently: go'a - an earlier bridi go'e - the next-to-last bridi go'i - the last bridi go'o - a future (not yet uttered) bridi go'u - a much earlier bridi fi'e - the bridi in which this bridi is embedded as a relative clause Adding fai makes it possible to remove the current vo'V set of reflexive anaphora, which refer to the 1st-5th sumti of the current bridi. Example: le nanmu darxi le vo'a mapku = "the man hits x1's hat" where vo'a refers to the referent of "le nanmu". The alternative construction with fai would be le nanmu darxi le mapku po le fai = "the man hits the hat of the-x1-of this-bridi". This is less concise but frees up five cmavo. 3) Proposed cmavo: vi'o (COI) a protocol vocative meaning "Wilco", or "I understand and will comply". We already have je'e meaning "Roger" or "I understand". lojbab thinks that "Wilco" is correctly represented by je'e ai = "Roger, aye aye". My sense is that "Roger" and "Wilco" are both acknowledgements, but ack two different things: "Roger" acks the receipt of the message, whereas "Wilco" acks both the message and also signals that the next action will be taken by the receiver. Anybody with actual experience in military (or other protocol-bound) communications have a comment? Another question about the protocol vocatives: what is the proper use of mi'enai? Mi'e means "I am" and is the generalized self-introduction. The attitudinal documentation in JL12 specifies mi'enai as useful in the situation, "You don't know me; my name is..." It seems to me that this is wrong. -nai in the protocol context is a scalar negative. mi'e djan. = mi du la djan. = "I am John", so mi'enai djan. = "I am non-John". or "I non-am John". This would be useful in rejecting a label placed on you by someone else. For example, if I said to lojbab, "coi frank." he might reply "mi'enai frank. mi'e lojbab." or just "mi'enai mi'e lojbab." to correct me. If he didn't care about correcting me, but only that I not identify him as Frank (e.g. if I were trying to serve legal papers on Frank) a simple "mi'enai" would suffice. -- cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban -- cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban