{xu} is less syntactic than it seems, because you m= ay want to emphasize that your question pertains to different parts of the = sentence; you may want to say, for a contrived example, "Are you going to t= he store to buy meat?", which implicitly asserts that you, the speak= er, do know that the listener is going to the store, but do not know what t= hey are going to the store to buy, and have a guess as to what it is. In Lo= jban you would then say {[pau] do klama le zarci fi'o se vecnu lo rectu xu}= or something similar.

mu'o mi'e latros

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011= at 1:36 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.c= om> wrote:

Well, that makes sense, sorta. I wouldn= 't have take 'xu' as an attitudinal, for one thing -- it is too clearly syn= tactic for that (cf. 'ma'). For another, that usage is hardly what th= e comments on this thread suggest, which are more along the lines I suggest= -- with exceptions, I admit.

Sent from my iPad

On Ju= l 11, 2011, at 10:52, ".arpis." <rp= glover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm tryin= g to figure all the various discussions under this label out. Let me = summarize what I understand and then set me straight.
1) Since 'xu dai' makes little sense literally, I take it it is an idiom of= some sort, apparently meaning "What is the appropriate UI to use here, wit= h reference to someone else?", I.e., "What would contextually defined so an= d so have used at this point in this sentence --suitably edited?" &n= bsp; So, 'mi xu dai klama?' asks you what someone (contextually you, = again, but I supposed there is a way to assign it otherwise) would have sai= d in the frame 'do ... klama.' (or maybe, in this case, 'la pycyn ... klama= '). The correct answer is presumably something like 'zo ui' ( with an= appropriate choice of UI). The answer which seems to be given is 'ui= ', which clearly wrong in two ways: it is now an expression of the responde= nt's response to being asked the question (or something like that) and not = someone's response to my coming and b) if it were to be that it would be de= ceptive since it would not actually express that emotion (in the usual case= ) but rather simulate it after it had gone away.

I disagree with this interpretation of {xu dai}. Jus= t like {ui dai} ascribes happiness to the listener, {xu dai} ascribes quest= ioning to the listener. This is little use except as a rhetorical device, b= ut AFAICT it's the only consistent interpretation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@go= oglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den= .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@go= oglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den= .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.