Talk:BPFK Section: Vocatives
Archived Tiki forum discussion for BPFK Section: Vocatives. Original authors, UTC times, and post IDs are retained below.
BPFK Section: Vocatives (Tiki thread #3453)
Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-01-08 00:46 UTC · Tiki post #3454 (reply to #3453)
BPFK Section: Vocatives
rab.spir · 2005-01-10 16:56 UTC · Tiki post #3459 (reply to #3453)
> Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives > The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the COI set.
What's wrong with u'u? Why does it need to be COI and not UI? --
Rob SpeerBPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-01-10 16:57 UTC · Tiki post #3460 (reply to #3453)
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0800, [email protected] > wrote: > > The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious > > whole in the COI set. > > What's wrong with u'u? Why does it need to be COI and not UI?
Because we have a COI for "thank you <name>". A COI for "I'm sorry <name>" seems an obvious parallelism. There's a *huge* difference between expressing regret and opologizing.
-RobinBPFK Section: Vocatives
Anonymous · 2005-01-12 02:45 UTC · Tiki post #3685 (reply to #3453)
The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the COI set.
-RobinBPFK Section: Vocatives
Anonymous · 2005-02-01 00:16 UTC · Tiki post #3825 (reply to #3453)
> Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives > The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the COI set.
Why a COI rather than just a UI, which we already have, indeed two different ones (uu and u'u) for the two senses of "I'm sorry"?
-- John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
--Thomas Henry HuxleyBPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-02-01 00:16 UTC · Tiki post #3826 (reply to #3453)
> [email protected] scripsit: > > The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious > > whole in the COI set. > > Why a COI rather than just a UI, which we already have, indeed two > different ones (uu and u'u) for the two senses of "I'm sorry"?
Because we have coi for please and thank you.
-RobinBPFK Section: Vocatives
xorxes · 2005-02-01 00:16 UTC · Tiki post #3827 (reply to #3453)
> [email protected] scripsit: > > Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives > > The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the > COI set. > > Why a COI rather than just a UI, which we already have, indeed two different > ones (uu and u'u) for the two senses of "I'm sorry"?
Presumably he was thinking of the u'u sense.
It's not easy to see how this was decided:
COI UI pe'u e'o ki'e ??? ??? u'u
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
BPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-02-01 00:16 UTC · Tiki post #3828 (reply to #3453)
> > --- John Cowan wrote: > > [email protected] scripsit: > > > Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" > > > seems like a pretty obvious whole in the > > COI set. > > > > Why a COI rather than just a UI, which we already have, indeed > > two different ones (uu and u'u) for the two senses of "I'm > > sorry"? > > Presumably he was thinking of the u'u sense. > > It's not easy to see how this was decided: > > COI UI > pe'u e'o > ki'e ??? > ??? u'u
Indeed.
Furthermore, my .u'u are usually *directed* *at* someone.
-RobinBPFK Section: Vocatives
Anonymous · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3829 (reply to #3453)
> It's not easy to see how this was decided: > > COI UI > pe'u e'o > ki'e ??? > ??? u'u
I think that the first of these is a wart, and that e'o shouldn't have been created (but waaay too late now). In general there shouldn't be overlap between COI and UI.
-- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [email protected] In might the Feanorians / that swore the unforgotten oath brought war into Arvernien / with burning and with broken troth. and Elwing from her fastness dim / then cast her in the waters wide, but like a mew was swiftly borne, / uplifted o'er the roaring tide.
--the EarendillinweBPFK Section: Vocatives
xorxes · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3830 (reply to #3453)
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:02:20PM -0800, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > It's not easy to see how this was decided: > > > > COI UI > > pe'u e'o > > ki'e ??? > > ??? u'u > > Indeed. > > Furthermore, my .u'u are usually *directed* *at* someone.
You can always say {u'u doi dav}, but then why not {e'o doi dav} instead of {pe'u dav}, and why not {i'o doi dav} instead of {ki'e dav}? (except that's not quite the sense of {i'o}.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
BPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3831 (reply to #3453)
> Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > > It's not easy to see how this was decided: > > > > COI UI > > pe'u e'o > > ki'e ??? > > ??? u'u > > I think that the first of these is a wart, and that e'o shouldn't > have been created (but waaay too late now). In general there > shouldn't be overlap between COI and UI.
Too late, as you noted.
Regardless, I would like a way to direct my .u'u without using xenru. We can just note the request and move on, no?
-RobinBPFK Section: Vocatives
xorxes · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3832 (reply to #3453)
> Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > > It's not easy to see how this was decided: > > > > COI UI > > pe'u e'o > > ki'e ??? > > ??? u'u > > I think that the first of these is a wart, and that e'o shouldn't have been > created (but waaay too late now). In general there shouldn't be overlap > between COI and UI.
{e'o} is used more than {pe'u} though. I think most COIs (all but {mi'e} actually) should have been in UI.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
BPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3833 (reply to #3453)
> > --- John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > > > > It's not easy to see how this was decided: > > > > > > COI UI > > > pe'u e'o > > > ki'e ??? > > > ??? u'u > > > > I think that the first of these is a wart, and that e'o > > shouldn't have been created (but waaay too late now). In > > general there shouldn't be overlap between COI and UI. > > {e'o} is used more than {pe'u} though.
Not by me. Not by a long shot. I strongly prefer COI to UI whenever another person is involved.
-RobinBPFK Section: Vocatives
xorxes · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3834 (reply to #3453)
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:19:43PM -0800, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > {e'o} is used more than {pe'u} though. > > Not by me. Not by a long shot. I strongly prefer COI to UI > whenever another person is involved.
Even when it is already clear who you are talking to? I often find COIs cumbersome because they require some terminator when it's already obvious who you are talking to. And I have noticed that forgetting that terminator is a very frequent mistake.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
BPFK Section: Vocatives
rlpowell · 2005-02-01 00:17 UTC · Tiki post #3835 (reply to #3453)
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:19:43PM -0800, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > > {e'o} is used more than {pe'u} though. > > > > Not by me. Not by a long shot. I strongly prefer COI to UI > > whenever another person is involved. > > Even when it is already clear who you are talking to?
Yup.
> I often find COIs cumbersome because they require some terminator > when it's already obvious who you are talking to.
I use "do", but it's a good point.
> And I have noticed that forgetting that terminator is a very > frequent mistake.
Yup.
-RobinRe: BPFK Section: Vocatives
arj · 2007-06-10 21:34 UTC · Tiki post #6223 (reply to #3453)
> re'i > xu do dunda lo sicni > Pardon me, ma'am. > Yes? > Can you spare a dime?
The last sentence here, in Lojban, should be something like "e'o ko dunda lo sicni", possibly with a "ga'i nai" thrown in for good measure. (Requests, no matter how polite, should not be phrased as questions.)
> pe'u do'u ko na dunda lo cidja lo danlu I think "le danlu" would be slightly better, if it is intended to refer to some zoo animals. Otherwise, to follow the prohibition, you couldn't feed human beings either.
You missed the triple-percentage sign after: > ko ti klama doi gerku
-arj
(posting from web interface because the thread is so old that I don't have a copy anymore)BPFK Section: Vocatives
Anonymous · 2007-06-11 15:42 UTC · Tiki post #6224 (reply to #3453)
> > > xu do dunda lo sicni > > The last sentence here, in Lojban, should be something like "e'o ko > dunda lo sicni", possibly with a "ga'i nai" thrown in for good measure. > (Requests, no matter how polite, should not be phrased as questions.)
I disagree, I don't see any problem in using questions, assertions, or any other type of utterance, to make requests, to make insinuations, etc. What effect an utterance has on the listener is a matter of pragmatics. "Is it true that you are going to be so generous as to give me a dime?" is a perfectly valid question to make. However, phrasing it as a blunt request is also possible, so I changed it.
> > pe'u do'u ko na dunda lo cidja lo danlu > I think "le danlu" would be slightly better, if it is intended to refer to some > zoo animals. Otherwise, to follow the prohibition, you couldn't feed human > beings either.
OK, changed. (I disagree with your conclusion, but it's no big deal.)
> You missed the triple-percentage sign after: > > ko ti klama doi gerku
je'e ki'e mi'e xorxesBPFK Section: Vocatives
arj · 2007-06-12 09:03 UTC · Tiki post #6228 (reply to #3453)
You should avoid using "mabla" in examples until we have resolved its place structure.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ [T]he savvy DXer will usually bet a pair of nickels he can pinpoint the DXCC country of the "chopity-chow-pit chow-chow-pi-chow" even before he hears the
call sign. -John F. Lindholm, QST vol. 66 no. 3 p. 83BPFK Section: Vocatives
Anonymous · 2007-06-12 12:49 UTC · Tiki post #6229 (reply to #3453)
> > nu'e do'u mi na za'u re'u pante ca le cabdei .i .yy go'i nu'e nai .i ti mabla > > You should avoid using "mabla" in examples until we have resolved its place structure.
OK, I changed it to "rigni".
mu'o mi'e xorxesBPFK Section: Vocatives
arj · 2007-06-24 15:32 UTC · Tiki post #6234 (reply to #3453)
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule. Ice is cool.BPFK Section: Vocatives
Anonymous · 2007-06-24 17:52 UTC · Tiki post #6235 (reply to #3453)
> The definition for "je'e nai" is too vague. I propose something > like "Used to indicate that a message was not understood."
I think {je'e} is not restricted to understanding only, so I changed it to:
"Used to deny acknowledgement or indicate that a message was not understood."
ki'e mi'e xorxesBPFK Section: Vocatives
arj · 2008-11-24 22:16 UTC · Tiki post #7656 (reply to #3453)
Comments for Vocatives:
In fe'o, "the end of a discussion" is too specific. How about something like "the end of a conversation"?
The definition for ju'i cu'i doesn't seem to fit in at the midpoint of the scale. Can we take out the soldiers somehow?
ki'e nai: isn't this more like ingratitude?
nu'e nai: your definition is actually pretty close to the one in the cmavo list, which says "un-promise". :-)
In the example for "ta'a da ma stuzi lo vimku'a", I would perhaps use "ta'a do'u" instead, since using "da" presupposes that the person(s) addressed have at least one referent.
Suggested additional keywords:
je'e nai: excuse me? pardon?
ju'i nai: nevermind.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
You Can't Have Your Kate And Edith Too.BPFK Section: Vocatives
" Jorge Llambías " <[email protected]> · 2008-11-24 22:16 UTC · Tiki post #7657 (reply to #3453)
> Sorry for breaking threading, but the web interface for discussions seems to be broken. Hope this message makes it through.
At least Gmail threaded it properly.
> Comments for Vocatives: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > In fe'o, "the end of a discussion" is too specific. How about something like "the end of a conversation"?
Changed to "the end of a conversation or discussion". OK?
> The definition for ju'i cu'i doesn't seem to fit in at the midpoint of the scale. Can we take out the soldiers somehow?
Suggestions? That's the only use of "at ease" I know of.
> ki'e nai: isn't this more like ingratitude?
"No thanks to you" doesn't mean ingratitude. Ingratitude is not something one expresses, it's rather a lack of expressing.
> nu'e nai: your definition is actually pretty close to the one in the cmavo list, which says "un-promise". :-)
Are you complaining that I'm following the cmavo list too closely? :)
> In the example for "ta'a da ma stuzi lo vimku'a", I would perhaps use "ta'a do'u" instead, since using "da" presupposes that the person(s) addressed have at least one referent.
Well, presumably there are people present there. Otherwise it couldn't be an interruption.
> Suggested additional keywords:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> je'e nai: excuse me? pardon?
>
> ju'i nai: nevermind.
OK.
mu'o mi'e xorxesBPFK Section: Vocatives
arj · 2008-11-24 22:17 UTC · Tiki post #7658 (reply to #3453)
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comments for Vocatives: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > In fe'o, "the end of a discussion" is too specific. How about something like "the end of a conversation"? > > Changed to "the end of a conversation or discussion". OK?
OK.
> > The definition for ju'i cu'i doesn't seem to fit in at the midpoint of the scale. Can we take out the soldiers somehow? > > Suggestions? That's the only use of "at ease" I know of.
Hmm, a tough one. How about this?
ju'i cu'i (COI*) Vocative. Used to suggest a normal level of attention, for instance as a command to troops to assume a relaxed position.
This seems to me to most accurately reflect what should intuitively be the midpoint between ju'i and ju'i nai. Note that not all UI+cu'i or COI+cu'i combinations have definitions, but that does not mean that we can't use them, but (IMHO) that their meaning is difficult to express in English.
> > nu'e nai: your definition is actually pretty close to the one in the cmavo list, which says "un-promise". :-) > > Are you complaining that I'm following the cmavo list too closely? :)
Quite the opposite: when the cmavo list and the CLL are in disagreement, I think it is *more* okay to second-guess CLL. :-)
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove you're not a dog. --Bill de hÓraBPFK Section: Vocatives
" Jorge Llambías " <[email protected]> · 2008-11-24 22:17 UTC · Tiki post #7660 (reply to #3453)
> > Hmm, a tough one. How about this? > > ju'i cu'i (COI*) > Vocative. Used to suggest a normal level of attention, for instance as a command to troops to assume a relaxed position. > > This seems to me to most accurately reflect what should intuitively be the midpoint between ju'i and ju'i nai.
OK. Done.
> Note that not all UI+cu'i or COI+cu'i combinations have definitions, but that does not mean that we can't use them, but (IMHO) that their meaning is difficult to express in English.
Sure. I'd be happy to remove "ju'o cu'i" from the list entirely.
(BTW, ju'i Robin, whenever I edit a tiki page I get an error, I have to go back and only the second time the edit goes through. Also, the changes don't show up in "Recent Changes", and they don't seem to be posted to the wikichanges list.)
mi'e xorxes
