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 m0qTw8v-000023C; Fri, 29 Jul 94 20:54 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8384; Fri, 29 Jul 94 20:53:36 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8380; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 20:53:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5159; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:52:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:53:28 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ga'i[nai] (was: ciska bai tu'a zo bai) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199407261346.AA19753@nfs1.digex.net> from "Colin Fine" at Jul 26, 94 02:31:12 pm Content-Length: 2115 Lines: 62 la kolin. cusku di'e > I think Nick has given us a very valuable explication of the "ga'i" > problem, but we're still in knots. I would like to propose a Gordian > solution: > > "ga'i" is not an honorific. > > Ga'i (ga'inai) expresses an attitude of hauteur (humility) >on the part of > the speaker >in respect of (not >relative to) the item it's attached to. No, I think that "relative to" is correct, insofar as I understand your distinction. > (OK, so a bare ga'i is honorific of the self, but that's not in the usual > gamut of honorifics). Yes. It is an absolute-rank deixis particle. > Any honorific effect is a contextually (and presumably socially) determined > pragmatic consequence, not in the semantics of the UI > > Thus in the original > =JL> > 7.1) ko ga'inai nenri klama le mi zdani > =JL> > you-imperative [low-rank!] enter type-of come-to my house. > =JL> > Honorable one, enter my unworthy house. > > the literal translation is quite correct, and the 'normal' (? looks more > like cod-Chinese to me) Ham-Japanese, actually. Nick complained loudly anent this, and I fixed it: the colloquial translation now says simply "I would be honored if you would enter my residence." > one is plausible but not forced: it could equally > be > "I humbly instruct you to come in to my splendid house", You are right, since there is no rank marking on "house" at all. One deficiency of the current system is that there is no way of indicating the relative ranks of two things/persons neither of whom is the speaker: the system cannot be manipulated into referring to, say, "Your Majesty's hovel", indicating that the house's rank is much lower than the listener's. > though I accept that this is less plausible. Probably. > Nick's example > le patfu cu klama vauga'inai > > means > Father is coming (and I am humble about that) > > It says nothing whatever about whether I am honoring father, the hearer, > both or neither. Correct. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.