[lojban-beginners] Re: let us

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 9/6/2009 09:51:40 Eastern Daylight Time,
> selckiku@gmail.com writes:
> ÂIt can be even more useful to reassign "mi", which allows you
> to use the whole attitudinal palette to paint anyone's voice:
>
> mi'e gerku
> Speaking for a dog.
>
>
> This just seems like a wrong interpretation of "mi'e" to me. ÂMy
> understanding of "mi'e" is that whatever follows it is a way of naming the
> speaker who says "mi'e". ÂThus "mi'e gerku" means "I'm called Gerku".


   Actually, it doesn't mean that.  That can only be "mi'e la gerku".
If you are not using a cmevla after a COI/DOI, it means that you are
actually identifying a member of that category, so the la becomes
necessary if you are using a brivla for a name (like "gejyspa") when
using COI/DOI (admittedly, most people informally drop it in
conversations with me, but strictly speaking, it is necessary, unless
I really am a rootish plant by some standard, which I'm not).  So mi'e
gerku means "I am a dog, and 'mi' will refer to me, the dog who is
communicating".  Whether selckiku could use it as he specifies is a
more interesting question, to which I'd probably be inclined to answer
"no".  He is asserting he is _a_ dog, but whether he could specify he
is a dog other than himself, might be a bit trickier....

>
> "Speaking for a dog", OTOH, means that you are giving voice or representing
> someone/something else, namely some dog, and has nothing to do with giving a
> name to the speaker.
>
> Can someone else shed more light on this?
>
> stevo