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 m0qRP6a-000023C; Fri, 22 Jul 94 21:13 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2116; Fri, 22 Jul 94 21:12:28 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2113; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 21:12:28 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5129; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 20:11:37 +0200 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 14:15:55 EDT 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1623 Lines: 36 la kris di'e cusku > i la lojban cu traji xamgu pevlivla le besna > i ku'i leli'i mutce cu te ckape .ii i ie le dukse be lo xamgu cu ka'e xlali > i xu? do terpa gi'a se ruble tu'a le besna > isemu'ibo zo'o ko se pevlivla la lojban. .u'o na.e la esperanton. .u'onai i ju'o la lojban ba gasnu le nu do binxo le tsali i ly do zengau le ka cinse joi gletu kakne uiro'u i ko terve'u pa botpi ija'ebo do le remoi cu cpacu co pleji be noda > >> 7.1) ko ga'inai nenri klama le mi zdani > >> you-imperative [low-rank!] enter type-of come-to my house. > >> Honorable one, enter my unworthy house. > >> ----------------- > > ko ga'i nenri klama le mi zdani ga'inai > > Actually I changed my mind after reading the revised version. I think the > author meant to say that the attitudinal expresses how you feel in rank when > compared with the modified word -- quite the opposite from the Japanese > convention. Since the attitudinal is relative to the speaker it would never > (I presume) be correct to say "mi ga'i" or "mi ga'inai" since you can't be > ranked differently from yourself. Again quite different from Japanese. And yet {mi ga'i} and {mi ga'inai} are probably where {ga'i} has seen most use. I like the Japanese convention, if I understand it correctly: the attitudinal shows the rank that the speaker feels the marked object has (wrt to the speaker or wrt to general conventions). This is much more flexible, because it allows for example to refer to someone of the same (high or low) rank, which otherwise you couldn't do explicitly, by marking {mi} with the same attitudinal. Jorge