Message-Id: <m0qRxCO-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 23 Jul 1994 12:30:17 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1641
Lines: 46

la lojbab cusku di'e

> ki'a (Confusion!?)

tu'a ba'e mi cfipu xu?

[to'i se vimcu ke cfipu selcusku toi]

> Some of these quotes seem to favor the 'Japanese' system, which I think would
> favor "ga'i" marking to be an indication of rank of the marked.

That's what I intended to favor, yes.

> But the comment on obsequiousness contradicts this, and the statement to
> not change the dictionary is merely ambivalent or agreeing with the status
 quo.

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)

> 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. 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.

> I have no real knowledge of tyhe Japanese system

Neither do I. I simply liked the interpretation that was said to reflect
that system.

> to have designed the Lojban
> system to exactly match the model, though I was trying to enable such a match
> if possible.  The interpretation Chris quoted is therefore wrong, unless a
> change is made.

I'm in favour of that change. :)


Jorge