WikiDiscuss

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

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

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 <name>". A COI for "I'm sorry
<name>" seems an obvious parallelism. There's a *huge* difference
between expressing regret and opologizing.

-Robin

Re: BPFK Section: Vocatives
The lack of a COI for "I'm sorry" seems like a pretty obvious whole in the COI set.

-Robin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 <jcowan@reutershealth.com> 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

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

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

Posted by arj on Sun 10 of Jun, 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)

On 6/10/07, arj <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> 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

Posted by arj on Tue 12 of Jun, 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

On 6/12/07, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> 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

Posted by arj on Sun 24 of Jun, 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.

On 6/24/07, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> 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

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.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> 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

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 <arj@nvg.org> 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

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> 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