Message-Id: <m0qRMWQ-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 1994 11:28:07 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: 1821
Lines: 52

la lojbab cusku di'e

> 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.
>
> This is translated correctly, though it may seem counterintuitive.

Yes, it does. I liked the Japanese system much better.

> Remember that attitudinals for the most part are expressions of the self.
> "ga'inai" expresses "I am so meek" as compared to that whch it marks.

Then what is {mi ga'inai}? "I am so meek as compared to myself"?

{ga'i} would still express the attitude of the self in the Japanese style,
only that instead of comparing the self to what it marks, it gives the attitude
of the self towards that which is marked, like most other attitudinals do.

> In this case, however, Zipf may argue for a reversal of meaning for ga'i,
> since almost all examples of actual usage are of "ga'inai", and a lot more
> people have reason to be obsequious than blatantly pompous.

I don't agree. Let the obsequious ones make the effort. Of course it is purely
subjective, but I have more difficulty in seeing the "high rank" as "negative".

> I await the community's opinion on this, but with the dcitionary work rushng
> headlong, but people who might want a change should speak up early.

My opinion: Do not change the dictionary, change the explanation in the grammar
back to what it was before.

> My reaction
> to last minute changes to the dictionary file:
>
>    mi ga'i na se zdile
>
> %^)

:)

How would you say "We are not amused by the change proposals made
by his excellency"?

        mi ga'i na se zdile le nu galfi stidi be fa ko'a ga'i[nai?]


{ga'inai} there would be extremely confusing. Why was the interpretation
changed from the one Chris quoted, which seems much more sensible?


Jorge