From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Sun Jul 24 02:38:54 1994 Message-Id: <199407240638.AA07388@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Sun Jul 24 02:38:54 1994 Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO 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