From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Oct 20 10:39:57 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 47034 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2004 17:39:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Oct 2004 17:39:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2004 17:39:56 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CKKRC-0003gi-Lo for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:39:50 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CKKQM-0003fl-Ky; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [69.55.227.156] (helo=transfinite.hypercomplex.net ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1CKKQA-0003fZ-16 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:46 -0700 Received: from tx0.mail.ox.ac.uk (tx0.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.163]) by transfinite.hypercomplex.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4.swsoft) with ESMTP id i9KHcfUK030754 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:42 -0700 Received: from scan0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.162] helo=localhost) by tx0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CKKPy-0006BB-23 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:38:34 +0100 Received: from rx0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.161]) by localhost (scan0.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.162]) (amavisd-new, port 25) with ESMTP id 23633-02 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:38:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from dh178.chch.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.120.178] helo=chch.ox.ac.uk) by rx0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CKKPy-0006B2-1M for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:38:34 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:38:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20041020173832.GA15196@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> References: <20041019195545.GA24478@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> <20041020085127.17414.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041020085127.17414.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: ganxo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Greylist: Delayed for 21:42:45 by milter-greylist-1.4 (transfinite.hypercomplex.net [69.55.227.156]); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:42 -0700 (PDT) X-archive-position: 8808 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jboste@zugzwang.port5.com 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: jboste@zugzwang.port5.com Subject: [lojban] Re: jordis X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23214 * Wednesday, 2004-10-20 at 01:51 -0700 - jordi mas : > --- Martin Bays wrote: > > All vowels are long in Lojban, except {y}. But {martin} is pronounced > > something like "maa-r-teen" (with the 'r' pronounced in one of a number of > > ways, none of which I can do right... see > >reference_grammar/chapter3.html) > According to that page, "for ``r'', [all rhotic sounds] are equally > acceptable." And according to this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_consonant an English R is a rothic > sound. So, couldn't you just use an English R? I could if I could pronounce it properly! > > {do tavla fi le ba'e mi speni} > > > > Would emphasise the fact that the wife in question > > pertains to me. > The idea was emphasising the fact that there > is a relation between her and me, as opposed > to her being unrelated to me, not that she is the wife > of me as opposed to being the wife of > somebody else. In that sense, would "ba'e le mi speni" > or " le mi ba'e speni " work ??? Sure. {le ba'e mi speni}, {ba'e le mi speni} and {le mi ba'e speni} correspond respectively to "*my* wife", "*my wife*" and "my *wife*". > > Perhaps spelling out how she pertains would emphasise further, as would > > bringing her nearer the front of the sentence: > > {do fi le speni be ba'e mi ku tavla} > Now that we are at it, why not even > nearer, like this: > {fi ba'e le speni be mi be'o fa do tavla} I originally wrote something like that, then deleted it. It felt wrong. I *think* the reason is this: the natural order of things is for each sumti to fill the argument-place succeeding the previous sumti. Whenever you mess with that order you force the reader to juggle the sumti into another place - which draws attention to the sumti. Maybe. So assuming my analysis is accurate: in the above, {do} is emphasized - which wasn't wanted. > But anyway --- are you sure that displacing sumti towards the front to show > emphasis is not malrarbau? Well it's certainly an informal and inexact way of doing it, whether or not it works for not-just-natlang reasons - which makes it arguably unlojbanic. I think CLL mentions that it is generally understood this way, but what difference that makes I'm not sure. In any case, we have {ba'e} and the attitudinals for when we want to be precise.