From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Jul 14 20:46:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 15 Jul 2001 03:46:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 37349 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2001 03:46:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jul 2001 03:46:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2001 03:46:09 -0000 Received: from m956-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.43.188] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15LccA-0001Ot-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:30:39 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:45:19 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010714171907.0541af00@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8590 Lojbab: > At 08:50 PM 07/14/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >1. Why is "doi" in DOI, while "mi'e" is in COI? > > doi is by itself in its own selma'o because, like "la" we wanted to have > some word that could precede a name in a vocative without a pause. All of > the COI words can precede a name, but require a pause or doi to avoid being > part of the name. On the other hand, a name cannot have a syllable "doi" > in it or it becomes ambiguous what the start of the name is. It can have > "mi'e" within the name. Okay. So in all other respects DOI patterns with COI. > >2. "la nanmu" means "ko'a poi cmene fa zo nanmu ke'a", while > >"coi nanmu" means "coi do [p]oi nanmu fa ke'a". > > No. coi nanmu means coi do poi du la nanmu just as coi djan means coi do > poi du la djan No -- what you say is in clear contradiction to the Woldy Codex, page 136 in discussion of ex. 11.5, though I too was in error. It is clear from the book that "coi nanmu" = "coi le nanmu" = "coi do voi nanmu fa ke'a". > > I cannot work > >out from the Woldy Codex whether "doi nanmu" is in this > >respect like LA or like COI: does it mean "O man" -- "doi > >do [p]oi nanmu fa ke'a" -- or "O Man" -- "doi la nanmu"? > > It should be like coi. Grammatically COI and DOI are essentially the same > thing, with the differences intended for phonological restriction reasons. OK. So if somebody's name is "Nanmu", then the vocative would have to be "doi la nanmu" = "doi do poi cmene ke'a fa zo nanmu". > >3. "do poi nanmu fa ke'a" should mean "those of you that > >are men", but does "coi nanmu" mean "Hello, those of you > >that are men", > > "coi do poi nanmu fa ke'a", or does it > >mean "Hello, men", "coi do noi nanmu fa ke'a"? > > No - those of you that I am calling men. OK, but not "those of you that I am calling _Nanmu/Man_". Your gloss "those of you that I am [describing as] men" indicates that "coi nanmu" expresses a nonveridical restrictive modification of "do". It follows that to express a veridical modification of "do" one would have to say: coi do poi nanmu fa ke'a coi do noi nanmu fa ke'a there being no briefer substitutes for these. This leaves a serious problem, which I'm utterly amazed I've never noticed before: +restrictive/-incidental +veridical: do poi nanmu fa ke'a -restrictive/+incidental +veridical: do noi nanmu fa ke'a +?restrictive/-?incidental -veridical: do voi nanmu fa ke'a -?restrictive/+?incidental -veridical: do ??? nanmu fa ke'a -- how do we make the restrictive/incidental contrast with nonveridical descriptions? It's a real contrast: "le nanmu" = "ko'a voi-incid nanmu fa ke'a" while "coi nanmu = "coi do voi-restr nanmu fa ke'a" I could give further examples if necessary. > >4. Why are lojbanists encouraged to name themselves and others > >with cmevla? > > Umm, what do you mean by "encouraged"? Most Lojbanists seem to want to > have something to put after mi'e at the ends of their postings etc. and it > has always been one of the first things a new Lojbanist TRIES to do. No > encouragement needed. What I mean is that someone called Sally gets called "la salis." rather than "la sali.". Why? Why not "la sali."? OK, in some cases you'd have to have a la after coi, e.g. if Britney were "la britni" then it'd have to be "coi la britni" rather than "coi britni", since "coi britni" means "hello you who are restrictively and nonveridically described as whatever the fuhivla _britni_ denotes". But this seems like a choice Britney and her namers should make after due deliberation; the occasional extra "la" might seem a small price to pay to avoid mangling the sound of her name, by, say, perverting it into "britnis.". co'o mi'e la and. rosta.