WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 18 United States

> Use this thread to discuss the page:: BPFK Section: Intensifiers

I like the general direction, but the definition of {pei} doesn't seem adequate. In particular, the definition have any indication (to my reading) that when {pei} is applied to a UI, it is the listener's emotion and not the speaker's that is being asked about. Similarly, the {fi'i pei} example only works if the same reversal applies to CAI. The Book doesn't mention that, so it is a change, though I think it is an entirely proper one to make. Finally, the meaning of {pei} *not* after a UI (or CAI) has always been considered a question not just about intensity, but more of a "What attitudinal belongs here?", and the stated definition here doesn't seem to include that at all.

posts: 953

I'm not entirely happy with this.

  • The Impact section appeals to usage ("This doesn't seem to be exactly in line with usage"), but no analysis of usage appears elsewhere in the section.

  • The definitions refer to "the previous word", but this is unnecessary, because CAI is an indicator, and as such is covered by the same preface as ordinary UI cmavo.


If there are no objections, I'll start rewriting the section next week.

posts: 953

I am trying to find usage data of CAI that is not attached to a UI. Unfortunately, such usages seems to completely drowned by the typical case, that is, UI+CAI strings.

Anyone able to come up with a search that can show "bare" CAI?

arj@gavagai:~/Lojban$ grep -c -w "cai" all_logs.txt
257
arj@gavagai:~/Lojban$ grep -c -w "sai" all_logs.txt
2241
arj@gavagai:~/Lojban$ grep -c -w "cu'i" all_logs.txt
438
arj@gavagai:~/Lojban$ grep -c -w "ru'e" all_logs.txt
904

-arj

posts: 953

There are currently two people who have voted against this section.

Can the two of you please re-evaluate the section, and if necessary, suggest possible changes?

posts: 14214

The definitions refer to "the preface" repeatedly, without actually saying what that is.

-Robin

posts: 18 United States
Since there seems to be a consensus forming around COIpei, I've gone ahead and changed the page back to explicitly mention that vocatives are treated like indicators, for all CAI. Note that {nu'e cu'i} and {ju'i cu'i} already have definitions attached to them, so {cu'i} at the very least needs to affect vocatives. Extending that to the rest of CAI seems to be the way to proceed. Please revote, and if you object to either the intent or the wording please say so now!