From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199407291739.AA29543@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: ga'i[nai] (was: ciska bai tu'a zo bai)
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:39:59 -0400 (ADT)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199407260821.AA08430@nfs1.digex.net> from "Chris Bogart" at Jul 26, 94 02:11:34 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:       2740
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jul 29 13:40:08 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

la kris. bogart. cusku di'e

> CHRIS> Since the attitudinal is relative to the speaker it would never
> CHRIS> (I presume) be correct to say "mi ga'i" or "mi ga'inai" since you can't
> CHRIS> be ranked differently from yourself.  Again quite different from
> CHRIS> Japanese.
> 
> JC> I think this is a valid corollary of the current rules.

I no longer think so, but I still hold that "miga'i[nai]" is anomalous and
semi-paradoxical.

> JORGE>You and lojbab seem to disagree on what are the current rules.
> JORGE>
> JORGE>Lojbab gave the example {mi ga'i je do ga'i zukte}, meaning that
> JORGE>honorable me and honorable you do something.
> 
> LOJBAB>I think I said later in that article that I relaized that I had just
> LOJBAB>reversed them in the example.  Just as I did later for va'i/va'inai.

No, he hasn't.  "ga'i" has always been high-rank, "ga'inai" low rank.
(Briefly, Lojbab discussed reversing these on Zipfian grounds, but -- as I
posted earlier -- this is the Wrong Thing, because obsequiousness should
require more verbiage.)

> You didn't just reverse them.  Suppose we've all agreed that "ga'i" will
> mean high rank and "ga'inai" will mean low rank.
> 
> Then let's translate the following:
> 
> ga'i do zukte     ((I'm relatively high ranked!) you act)
>                         -> I rank high, maybe above you

I now read this as "I rank high in an absolute sense".

> ga'i mi zukte     ((I'm relatively high ranked!) I act)
>                         -> I rank high

Ditto.

> mi ga'i zukte     (I (I'm relatively high ranked!) act)
>                         -> I rank high (?)

This is the semi-paradoxical one, either:
	We (of whom I am the high-ranking one) act
or else
	I-at-the-time-of-action (who is outranked by me-at-the-time
		of-speaking) act/have acted/will act.

> do ga'i zukte     (You (I'm relatively high ranked!) act)
>                         -> You rank lower than me

Correct.

> do ga'inai zukte  (You (I'm relatively low ranked!) act)
>                         -> You rank higher than me

Correct.

> So if you want to say "honorable me and honorable you do something" it
> should be:
>          do ga'inai .e mi ga'i zukte

I now believe it should be:

	ga'i .i do ga'icu'i .e mi zukte

where "ga'icu'i" expresses that your rank is equal to mine, which was
given as high by the initial free-floating "ga'i".

In addition,  "joi" might be more appropriate in that circumstance.

> BTW, was it a typo or is it really possible to say "do je me" instead of "do
> .e mi"?  I thought "je" was for sentences and tanru only.

A typo, surely.  "je" can be used in a few other places, but not between
sumti.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.