From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Tue Aug 22 00:03:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11292 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2000 07:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2000 07:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lnd.internet-bg.net) (212.124.64.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2000 07:03:36 -0000 Received: from math.bas.bg (ppp120.internet-bg.net [212.124.66.120]) by lnd.internet-bg.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA17109 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:16:14 +0300 Message-ID: <39A2185D.89D9722B@math.bas.bg> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:06:21 +0300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Saying "also" or "too" in Lojban References: <966852152.11965@egroups.com> <39A14102.AD325C92@geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski SwiftRain wrote: [re `I love you too'] > It's not however a matter of "what is the right way to translate > this into Lojban." That is making la lojban into a code for > English, which renders it rather pointless as a language. Well, it isn't just English ... though I stop short of saying that all natlangs say something to the effect of `too'. > So think about it: Why do you feel the need to say "too" > in this English sentence? What is the basic reality which > is being expressed? Do you really need or want to say > that your love is in addition to the other person's love? Not exactly in addition to it (which is why {si'a} is indeed more appropriate than {ji'a}). It is just that there is some sort of pragmatic obligation to acknowledge the fact that a similar statement, with the same predicate though different arguments, has just been made, or perhaps the shared knowledge that another similar situation obtains. This is parallel to the use of `still'. `Is it raining?' would sound odd to me if both I and the inquirer know that it was raining half an hour ago; I'd expect `Is it still raining?'. This is why the joke Timothy : `I don't have no pencil!' Teacher: `Oh, Timothy, "I have no pencil".' Timothy: `You don't neither? Well, we're both in the same fix.' has never sounded convincing to me: if the teacher had meant to complain about being in the same fix as Timothy, I'd expect him to say something to the effect of {si'a}. > My reading of the situation is that the commonsense > dialogue of > > Person A: I love you. > Person B: I love you. (which actually sounds much more genuine than an exchange with an elided `too' normally does) > seems somehow uncreative in English, that a word must be added > to the second speech in order to make it seem more genuine -- > as if it proves that Person B is not just a parrot. Or more likely to prove that his statement is added to Person A's and does not supersede it. (`I'm the one who has no pencil, [you do have one].') "Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" wrote: > There's a German joke, that could have been invented by a user of > poor lojban: > A: Ich liebe Dich! > B: Ich liebe mich auch!! Wife: `You know, our neighbour kisses his wife every morning when going to work. Why don't you do the same?' Husband: `I like the idea, but don't you think it would be a little impertinent? I barely know her.' -- (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi) Ivan A Derzhanski H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences