Talk:BPFK Section: Vocatives

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

Posted by rlpowell on Sat 08 of Jan., 2005 00:46 GMT posts: 14214 The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the COI set.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by rab.spir on Mon 10 of Jan., 2005 16:56 GMT posts: 152 On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > 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 Speer


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 10 of Jan., 2005 16:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 11:12:52PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > 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 ". A COI for "I'm sorry " seems an obvious parallelism. There's a *huge* difference between expressing regret and opologizing.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:45 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the COI set.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:16 GMT wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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"?

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com 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 Huxley


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:16 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:52:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by xorxes on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:16 GMT posts: 1912


> wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:16 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:02:20PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- John Cowan wrote: > > wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT Jorge Llamb���)B�as 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.

-- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@reutershealth.com 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 Earendillinwe


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by xorxes on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT posts: 1912


> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:02:20PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as 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. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 06:11:35PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb??????�)B???as 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?

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by xorxes on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT posts: 1912


> Jorge Llamb���)B�as 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. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:19:43PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- John Cowan wrote: > > > Jorge Llamb??????�)B???as 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.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by xorxes on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT posts: 1912


> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:19:43PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as 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. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 01 of Feb., 2005 00:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:27:05PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:19:43PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as 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.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives

arj Posted by arj on Sun 10 of June, 2007 21:34 GMT posts: 953 > be'e nolni'u io > 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)

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 11 of June, 2007 15:42 GMT On 6/10/07, arj wrote: > > > 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 xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

arj Posted by arj on Tue 12 of June, 2007 09:03 GMT posts: 953 > 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.

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ The 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. 83


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 12 of June, 2007 12:49 GMT On 6/12/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > 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 xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

arj Posted by arj on Sun 24 of June, 2007 15:32 GMT posts: 953 The definition for "je'e nai" is too vague. I propose something like "Used to indicate that a message was not understood."

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule. Ice is cool.


Posted by Anonymous on Sun 24 of June, 2007 17:52 GMT On 6/24/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > 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 xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

arj Posted by arj on Mon 24 of Nov., 2008 22:16 GMT posts: 953 Sorry for breaking threading, but the web interface for discussions seems to be broken. Hope this message makes it through.

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.


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" on Mon 24 of Nov., 2008 22:16 GMT On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > 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 xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

arj Posted by arj on Mon 24 of Nov., 2008 22:17 GMT posts: 953 On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:12:15PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen 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 hÓra


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Vocatives

Posted by "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" on Mon 24 of Nov., 2008 22:17 GMT On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > 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