Message-Id: <199407251542.AA04718@nfs1.digex.net> Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Date: Mon Jul 25 11:42:20 1994 Sender: Lojban list From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jul 94 23:33:08 EDT." <9407230335.AA10695@julia.math.ucla.edu> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 25 11:42:20 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Lojbab says: > That status quo is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN that which I stated in my message, tha > ga'inai would mean self-abnegation or obsequiousness in all contexts, but wou > emphasize the contrast by marking that which is relatively more important. 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. Dare I say it? I don't see ci'a - cnita (below) assigned in the 6/13/94 cmavo list... -- jimc