[lojban] Re: jordis

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

* Wednesday, 2004-10-20 at 15:18 -0700 - jordi mas <jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com>:

> > > 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.
> Somehow I feel it to be unlojbanic, but don't
> ask me why.

Well we should probably leave it to the proper lojbanists to tell us what is
and isn't lojbanic. Opinions, proper lojbanists?

> Which of the following three statements
> do you feel to be more accurate?
> 
> (1)  CLL says {mi tavla do}, {do se tavla mi},
> {mi do tavla}, {tavla fa mi do}, {tavla fe do fa mi},
> {fe mi fa do se tavla}... mean exactly the same
> thing. 
> 
> (2) In practice people do use {do se tavla mi} for
> {ba'e mi tavla do} though CLL says they shouldn't.
> 
> (3) according to CLL, {do se tavla mi} is short for 
> {ba'e mi tavla do}.

Here's what I can actually find to quote
(http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter9.html):

"""
   All of the variant forms in this section and following sections can be used to place
   emphasis on the part or parts which have been moved out of their standard places. Thus,
   [25]Example 2.2 places emphasis on the selbri (because it is at the end); [26]Example
   2.3 emphasizes ``la bastn.'', because it has been moved before the selbri. Moving more
   than one component may dilute this emphasis. It is permitted, but no stylistic
   significance has yet been established for drastic reordering.
"""