[lojban] Re: jordis

[Martin Bays <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

* Wednesday, 2004-10-20 at 01:51 -0700 - jordi mas <jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com>:

> --- Martin Bays <jboste@zugzwang.port5.com> 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.