From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199407251700.AA12758@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 13:00:28 -0400 (ADT) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199407251542.AA04718@nfs1.digex.net> from "jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU" at Jul 25, 94 08:38:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1081 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 25 13:00:45 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la kartyr. djim. cusku di'e > I would like to believe that ga'i means that the speaker feels that the > marked referent is of higher rank than the speaker (honorific), and > ga'inai means that the speaker feels superior (abasement of the > referent or elevation of the speaker). So, while in my recent posting > I said that the scale of ga'i should not be reversed, that judgement > was in fact reversed. Sorry for the flip-flop. Okay. But in fact "ga'i" means that the speaker is of higher rank than the referent, just as ".ui" means that the speaker feels happy about the referent. So "ga'i" is indeed hauteur. I like the suggestion of "abasement" for "ga'inai". > Dare I say it? I don't see ci'a - cnita (below) assigned in the > 6/13/94 cmavo list... Try "ni'a". It's a FAhA, like all directions, not a simple BAI. "ci'a" used to be for "ciska", but it was found that cu'u/cusku and fi'e/finti did the work better, since "le ciska" is not "the author" but "the scribe". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.