Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> Not really contradictory, but I grant that irrelevant. In any case, whichever
> interpretation is decided, I prefer the scale to remain as it is now. This
> is the status quo that I was agreeing with: the orientation of the scale rather
> than the way of using it. (ga'i: high rank, ga'inai: low rank)

Given Jorge's remarks, plus Bob Chassell's admirable exposition of Zipf's law
failure in matters of obsequiousness, I now am opposed to changing
"ga'i" and "ga'inai".

> > That status quo is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN that which I stated in my message, that
> > ga'inai would mean self-abnegation or obsequiousness in all contexts, but
>  would
> > emphasize the contrast by marking that which is relatively more important.
> 
> Ok. I think this limits somehow its usefulness. It makes no sense with this
> interpretation to use it more than once in the same sentence.

Why not?

	la frank. ga'inai rapdarxi la djordj. ga'i
	Frank [my superior] beats George [my inferior]

> And you can't
> use it to talk, for example to someone of your same high rank about someone
> of low rank, and things like that.

Again, I see no problem, although (as noted in earlier postings) the
addressee must be made explicit in the sentence:

	la lojbab. ga'inai malpensi doi ga'icu'i
	Lojbab, that scumbag, is a poor-quality thinker, O-my-equal.

> I'm in favour of that change. :)

I'm {ga'i zo'o} against it.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.