From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Sep 24 17:19:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 25 Sep 2002 00:19:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 33132 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2002 00:19:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Sep 2002 00:19:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Sep 2002 00:19:07 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17tzvl-00045J-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:21:29 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tzvA-000451-00; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:20:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-7.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.107]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tzv2-00044r-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:20:44 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-71.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.71]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D9ED25273 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:17:48 +0200 (DST) To: "lojban-list" Subject: [lojban] Re: cmavo for emphasis? Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:19:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020923112454.G6159@miranda.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1574 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jay: [...] > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 06:01:01PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > #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. No, "bloody well" is merely vehement, not rude. I was just curious about the dialectal point. You needn't be careful with me -- when Chris Double was subscribed from his work account that had the anti porn filters, it was brought home to me how often I unwittingly employed the f-word in my postings (-- just because I write as I speak). Interestingly someone took the trouble to edit such a casual f-word out of my wiki page the other day; perhaps it is only British sensibilities that are inured to it. > > 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. :) Does "broda du" parse as a tanru? > > 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. It would be nice if I were. But I expressed myself too crudely. I gather that thanks to industry & application, the abilities of some Lojbanists to converse in Lojban are progressing by leaps and bounds. So by certain measures, the general level of competence is greatly increasing. What I had in mind was the competence to express yourself in Lojban so that the meaning encoded by your sentences matches the meaning you intended to express linguistically; it's that competence that I feel remains underdeveloped in the community. That's not to say I think it isn't gradually developing, though. --And.