From mark@kli.org Wed Sep 19 21:07:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 20 Sep 2001 04:07:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 85849 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 04:07:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 20 Sep 2001 04:07:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 04:07:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.10.33] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2001 04:07:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 04:07:07 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Dumb answers to good questions Message-ID: <9obq1b+cbp9@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2789 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10888 For some reason, I've found myself thinking about a few points in Lojban and coming up with questions that I couldn't answer easily. The concepts are so simple and basic I'm sure they've come up before, but I don't recall how or where. Here's the first: Consider the question {mu'i ma la bab. darxi la fred.} "Why did Bob hit Fred?" A reasonable question. Reasonable answers include things like {mu'i le nu by. fengu} or {mu'i le nu fy. pu gletu le mensi be by} or whatever. But I could also just as easily answer {mu'i le nu fy. duksu leni barda le nu by. ka'e citka}. ("Why did he hit him? Well, he was too big to eat, and he couldn't wear him as a hat because he clashed with his shoes, and...") Or "Well, Jack was too far away/too big." These are all valid answers, but under many circumstances, they are completely unhelpful. OK, a lot of Lojban permits answers that are unhelpful. But how do you ask more explicitly? Why did Bob HIT Fred (as opposed to kissing him or doing something else)? Why did Bob hit FRED (as opposed to Susan or Jolene)? I suppose {ba'e} *might* do the job, but I'm not sure it's specific enough. Stuff with {.enai lo drata} won't do it. Maybe Bob *did* hit Susan and Jolene (and I know why), but I want to know why Fred had to get popped. One thing which I don't think would solve the problem completely, but would at least make a step towards it would be to have some UI word to flag what we're really asking about. Just as {do xu citka le nanba} and {do citka le nanba xu} specify precisely what's being asked about (but we can't do that with {mu'i ma} type questions). The obvious candidate would be {pau}: {mu'i ma la bab pau darxi la fred.} (why was it BOB that hit Fred?), {mu'ima la bab darxi pau la fred.} (why did Bob HIT Fred?), and {mu'ima la bab. darxi la fred. pau} (why was it FRED that Bob hit?). Still won't stop me from answering the second with "He wasn't hollow enough to live in," but that's life. I'm not sure why I'm not thinking {ba'e} here. Maybe "emphasis" isn't what's at stake here, but focus of the question. You know, come to think of it, Hebrew (particularly Modern Hebrew) has a word that's used something like this: "davka." It doesn't translate very well. The closest I can come is "particularly." "Why did davka Bob have to hit Fred." (why *particularly* Bob?) "Why did Bob davka hit Fred?" (why hit and not kick), and so on. Yes, among some folks you would in fact use it in English sentences too. And there's the phrase "lav davka"/"not particularly" for saying things like "The example in the book where it says "noun" is lav davka; it could be any word." Has this been hashed out already? I have to believe it has. Just musing. ~mark