From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Sep 23 10:26:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 17:26:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 8995 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 17:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 17:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 17:26:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17tX0G-0003ET-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:28:12 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tWzN-000371-00; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:27:17 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miranda.org ([209.58.150.153] ident=qmailr) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tWzH-000362-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:27:11 -0700 Received: (qmail 3740 invoked by uid 534); 23 Sep 2002 17:24:54 -0000 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:24:54 -0600 To: lojban-list Subject: [lojban] Re: cmavo for emphasis? Message-ID: <20020923112454.G6159@miranda.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from arosta@uclan.ac.uk on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 06:01:01PM +0100 X-archive-position: 1536 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jkominek@miranda.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jay F Kominek From: Jay F Kominek Reply-To: jkominek@miranda.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 06:01:01PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > Jay: > #On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:35:35PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > #> Yes about {ba'e} as the emphasis marker. But what I said wasn;t > #> irrelevant. Viktor asked "how do we express this", I said how, and > #> Jay answered that users of the language wouldn't understand the > #> usage. In a sense I was arguing that Jay's point was irrelevant, > #> that what users will or won't understand doesn't tell us much about > #> Lojban. > # > #Users won't understand it because it is bloody well wrong, as you've > #now noticed. > > Do people say "bloody well wrong" in Colorado? It sounds very British > to my ears. Nope, just me. It is, here, at least, considered less invective, and more acceptable than something like "fucking". Sorry if thats the opposite case elsewhere. I ought to be a bit more careful. > Anyway, did you not read what I wrote? Viktor's examples suggested > he was asking about focus, and what I originally said was wrong in > applying to emphasis, but relatively right in applying to focus. Sure, I'm not saying anything one way or the other about focus. But I was responding on emphasis from the start, and I personally thought it was quite clear exactly what he was asking for. If you thought he meant focus, well, I can understand why you suggested something different. Anything I said about your rightness or wrongness was entirely in the scope of whether or not it worked for emphasis. (Except the missing 'cu's. :) > But that still doesn't mean that users will understand it, because > the users are not very competent in Lojban. Oh, you'd be surprised. -- Jay Kominek Advice is a dangerous gift; be cautious about giving and receiving it.