From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sun Oct 24 05:48:07 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 24 Oct 1993 09:50:27 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 24 Oct 1993 09:50:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199310241350.AA02784@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6655; Sun, 24 Oct 93 09:48:20 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7325; Sun, 24 Oct 93 09:51:24 EDT Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 09:48:07 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: lujvo : tutuear X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Re: Tutear (anyone wanna make some lujvo???) Mark opined and Jorge agreed that "tutear" did not need a lujvo. I will agree that it does not need a SHORT lujvo. However, it is a concept that is not limited to one language, or even a family of languages - the habit of addressing some individuals with a formal pronoun (I don't know if it is always the same as the 2nd person plural) and others with a familiar pronoun. If you want to talk about the general phenomenon, you can't go using the equivalent of "calling someone 'tu'". We need a good lujvo for 'address' (i.e. vocatively talking to some one). If we have this lujvo, then (if we could rely on the English description of what is going on) slabydon-[address] vs clitydon-[address] would be satisfactory Given that one of the most common lojbo tertavla is languages, both Lojban and other languages, I am not satisfied with the argument that a feature not present in Lojban does not need a word in Lojban. If nothing else, how do you say in Lojban that it does not have the feature? lojbab lojbab