From graywyvern@hotmail.com Sat Dec 02 16:34:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 00:34:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 883 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 00:34:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 00:34:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.237.142) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 00:34:10 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:34:10 -0800 Received: from 209.176.48.49 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:34:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.176.48.49] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zoi gy. Good Morning! .gy. Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:34:10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2000 00:34:10.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0E9FC10:01C05CC0] From: "michael helsem" >From: pycyn@aol.com li'o > > Would {ceryrinsa - vacrinsa - cterinsa}, etc. be > > acceptable/understandable, at least as translation devices to > > represent conventional time-conditioned greetings from other > > languages? > > > >Sure, except that they none of them are greetings. That is, they describe >such greetings (with, e.g., {zoi gy Good Morning gy} in third place) but >they >don't work to perform them; you wouldn't say {ceryrinsa} to someone on >first >meeting them in the morning (well, maikl might). actually, yes. why wouldn't an observative be suitable, applying as it does to the immediate situation of greeting? or, one can consider it as "(mi) ceryrinsa (ko)" ellipticized... for a LEGAL performative, i guess maybe something with "ca'e"; but what action really is being performed by a mutter on the way to the coffee machine? _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com