From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199407251525.AA09680@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 11:25:30 -0400 (ADT) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199407240638.AA07388@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 23, 94 12:30:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1510 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 25 11:25:37 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la xorxes. cusku di'e > Not really contradictory, but I grant that irrelevant. In any case, whichever > interpretation is decided, I prefer the scale to remain as it is now. This > is the status quo that I was agreeing with: the orientation of the scale rather > than the way of using it. (ga'i: high rank, ga'inai: low rank) Given Jorge's remarks, plus Bob Chassell's admirable exposition of Zipf's law failure in matters of obsequiousness, I now am opposed to changing "ga'i" and "ga'inai". > > That status quo is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN that which I stated in my message, that > > ga'inai would mean self-abnegation or obsequiousness in all contexts, but > would > > emphasize the contrast by marking that which is relatively more important. > > Ok. I think this limits somehow its usefulness. It makes no sense with this > interpretation to use it more than once in the same sentence. Why not? la frank. ga'inai rapdarxi la djordj. ga'i Frank [my superior] beats George [my inferior] > And you can't > use it to talk, for example to someone of your same high rank about someone > of low rank, and things like that. Again, I see no problem, although (as noted in earlier postings) the addressee must be made explicit in the sentence: la lojbab. ga'inai malpensi doi ga'icu'i Lojbab, that scumbag, is a poor-quality thinker, O-my-equal. > I'm in favour of that change. :) I'm {ga'i zo'o} against it. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.