From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Oct 19 06:05:15 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 32602 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 13:05:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Oct 2004 13:05:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 13:05:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CJtfj-0003Ws-7h for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:05:03 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJtet-0003Va-WC; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:04:12 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tx4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.173]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJteI-0003V3-Us for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:03:35 -0700 Received: from scan4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.177] helo=localhost) by tx4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CJteD-0006F3-ER for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:03:29 +0100 Received: from rx4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.172]) by localhost (scan4.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.177]) (amavisd-new, port 25) with ESMTP id 23480-06 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:03:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from dh178.chch.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.120.178] helo=chch.ox.ac.uk) by rx4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CJteD-0006Ey-Dq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:03:29 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:03:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20041019130327.GB17868@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> References: <20041019090753.GA13645@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> <20041019121741.93448.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041019121741.93448.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: mei User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-archive-position: 8764 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@sdf.lonestar.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Martin Bays From: Martin Bays Reply-To: mbays@sdf.lonestar.org Subject: [lojban] Re: jordis X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23172 * Tuesday, 2004-10-19 at 05:17 -0700 - jordi mas : > --- Martin Bays wrote: > > > But {do me da poi broda} ("you are specific to someone who brodas") is > > surely still less precise than {do du da poi broda} - which is logically > > equivalent to (but a more flexible construction than) {do broda}. > > coi martin. (I prefer {maten.}) > Well, technically you're right. But try to see it from > my viewpoint. If I'm too imprecise, at worst > people will ask for clarification (and most people > won't say a thing just in case they look like > ignorants). I can deal with that. However, if I use > "du", then the "newbie alarm" goes off, and > all will be yellings of "ludicrous", "estilistically > inelegant" and so on, which I cannot answer; > I'll rather be supposed to trust in the superior > aesthetical judgment of people with more intuitive > knowledge than me. Lojban is about precision if it's about anything. If someone advises you to use an imprecise construction when it would be just as easy to use a precise one (which AFAICT no-one has as such done), explain calmly why you prefer the latter. jbopre are reasonable folk in general! > So my rule of thumb from now on is "never use du even > when you want to assert identity, just in case". If I > mean "hey, it's my wife you're talking about!" but I > have to say "hey, you are talking about my wife" to > avoid asserting identity, I'm fine with that, however > imprecise it is. Well that's a different case - the difference here is only one of emphasis. The two sentences are logically equivalent, and it is a matter of English idiom that the first emphasises the te tavla - so imho it would be malglico to copy the construction to Lojban. mu'o mi'e maten.