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 m0qSaQW-000023C; Tue, 26 Jul 94 03:31 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4831; Tue, 26 Jul 94 03:30:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4827; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 03:30:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3503; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 02:29:07 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 20:32:03 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: 649 Lines: 18 la djan cusku di'e > la kris. bogart. cusku di'e > > 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. > > I think this is a valid corollary of the current rules. You and lojbab seem to disagree on what are the current rules. Lojbab gave the example {mi ga'i je do ga'i zukte}, meaning that honorable me and honorable you do something. That's exactly what I would like, but it is not what you are saying, and it is not what lojbab was saying (in spite of his example). Jorge