Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qS3m4-000023C; Sun, 24 Jul 94 16:39 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qS3m4-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 1959; Sun, 24 Jul 94 16:38:03 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1955; Sun, 24 Jul 1994 16:38:03 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7463; Sun, 24 Jul 1994 15:37:11 +0200
Date:         Sun, 24 Jul 1994 14:37:06 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: ga'i[nai]
X-To:         lojban@cuvma.BITNET
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 23 Jul 94 09:01:11 EDT.)
Content-Length: 419
Lines: 12

gahinai, I agree with Bob Chassell:
> In my experience,  Zipf's rule fails for obsequiousness:  Those who
> express lower rank use more words.
>
> {ga'inai}, {e'o} keep the definition of {ga'i} as is.

The use of extra syllables is iconic: the humble speaker puts
themself out for the addressee; the addressee is worth the
extra effort. It is to inferiors or intimates that one is
peremptory.
-----
mihelahomo. And mo.