From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Sep 6 18:28:12 1993 Received: from BULLDOG.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 6 Sep 1993 12:32:04 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by bulldog.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 6 Sep 1993 12:31:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199309061631.AA05826@bulldog.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7470; Mon, 06 Sep 93 12:30:07 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7021; Mon, 06 Sep 93 12:33:00 EDT Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 17:28:12 +0100 Reply-To: Matthew Faupel Sender: Lojban list From: Matthew Faupel Subject: Tutear (anyone wanna make some lujvo???) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Colin Fine's message of Mon, 6 Sep 1993 16:15:54 +0100 Status: RO X-Status: JLL: norsi'arta'a x1 tutea a x2 in language x3 (incidentally should that be narsi'arta'a?) CF: I agree it's a hard one. But it's really not 'sinma', is CF: it? It's more like 'nobli' or 'cumla' I'd disagree; the division between tu/Usted is more one of informality versus formality than status. A status division would imply that two people would never use "Usted" to each other which is untrue (business contacts are likely to greet each other as Usted for instance if they're not well acquainted). {sinma} as "respect" is better than {nobli} or {cumla} I think, but how about something based on {na ritla tavla} (I don't know lujvo rules well enough to come up with the correct short form). Or is there some better bridi than {ritla} for formality? (I'm not happy with its primary meaning of "ritual" which isn't really the same thing as "formal"). Matthew