Message-Id: <199509170308.XAA25109@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 17 Sep 1995 00:28:56 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      backchannels
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Jorge:
> > la djan spuda la and di'e
> > > On the same topic, what would you use for a backchannel, like "right,
> > > yeah, mhm" etc.? (I.e. stuff the addressee says while the speaker's
> > > talking.)

So far I'm happiest with {.a'a}. Ije loi dahi nu koa mi se bacru kei
mi se xarkae.

> > > Nothing in COI seems an obvious choice. {je'e} seems
> > > the best, but my cmaste says it has a specialized usage of
> > > acknowledgement, which is different from backchanneling.
> > "je'e" is indeed the Right Thing; it specifically "acknowledges the
> > successful reception of a communcation" (the attitudinal paper).
> > What do you understand by "acknowledgement" other than this?
> The cmavo list says:
> je'e      COI     roger     vocative: roger (ack) - negative acknowledge;
> used to acknowledge offers and thanks

I thought that description implies it's like a "thank you:you're welcome"/
"danke:bitte"/"grazie:prego" response. This is, as Jorge says, not the
same thing as a mhm/uhuh backchannel:

> Also, it would be nice to have a more gracious way of replying
> to "thank you" than "mhm". Of course, it has to be somewhat
> idiomatic, but I still haven't found a nice way to do it.

Well, we could use {je'e} in the cmaste sense, and for backchannels
use {aa} or another UI that fits the context.

---
And