From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Aug 27 08:59:50 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 1307 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2003 15:59:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Aug 2003 15:59:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2003 15:59:36 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19s2gL-0002gP-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:58:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19s2fV-0002fm-00; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:57:09 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal.seas.wustl.edu ([128.252.145.2]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19s2fM-0002fZ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:57:00 -0700 Received: from clarion.cec.wustl.edu (clarion.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.3]) by postal.seas.wustl.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7RFF4F25074 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:15:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by clarion.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h7RFuq9u007514 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:56:52 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: clarion.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:56:52 -0500 (CDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: vocative questions In-Reply-To: <20030827151819.66570.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20030827151819.66570.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Status: No, -6.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Report: -6.7/5.0 ---- Start SpamAssassin results -6.70 points, 5 required; * -0.0 -- Has a valid-looking References header * 0.0 -- Message-Id indicates a non-spam MUA (Pine) * -0.4 -- Has a In-Reply-To header * -0.4 -- Has a X-Authentication-Warning header * -0.5 -- BODY: Contains what looks like an email attribution * -5.4 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 1 to 10% [score: 0.0163] * 0.0 -- Reply with quoted text ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-archive-position: 6056 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Adam D. Lopresto" From: "Adam D. Lopresto" Reply-To: adam@pubcrawler.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20538 On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote: > I agree that pei should turn a vocative into a vocative > question, rather than ask a question independent of the > vocative. Many of them would give useful questions: > nu'epei, ki'epei, fi'ipei, re'ipei, mu'opei, je'epei, > vi'opei, ke'opei, fe'opei. Yeah, lots of good stuff there. > I'm not sure about mi'epei. By logic it seems it should > be {mi'epei djan}, "Are you John?", but I would tend to > say {doipei djan}. Hmmm. As strange as it sounds, I think {mi'epei djan} should follow the logical pattern and mean "Are you John?". {doipei djan} should mean "Are you talking to John?", which can be pretty useful in its own right. For instance, I can see someone asking {doipei mi}, "You talkin' to me?". I guess the more general form would be {doidai ma}. mu'o mi'e adm. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by frost. >>From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken: The crownless again shall be king. --J.R.R. Tolkien