On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Mike S. <
maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For the vocative, I am just curious why simply "ca", or maybe a new
> particle "co" which is available, couldn't do the job in cooperation with
> other parts of the syntax. I don't think we need the ability to bind
> arbitrary variables to anything referring to "you/me"; that's what "e'e/a'a"
> is reserved for.
I suppose so.
> (As a side note, how exactly does "ca" differ from "ci"?)
ca marks its complement as being true by virtue of being uttered, ci
marks its complement as being claimed by the speaker:
ci F := ca la fa F xsra'aka
"ci" is probably the default illocutionary force of utterances without
an explicit illocutionary operator.
Okay, that's clear; "ca" can't cover the vocative as And also points out later.
> ca [le'e rslfe'e] me'e ndi
> VOC you are And
> hereby, you are And
>
> ca [la'a mslfa'a] ma'a mke
> VOC I am Mike.
> hereby, I am Mike.
Maybe. Does a vocative just identify the addressee, or is it also
supposed to call their attention?
My examples weren't all that good; "co Pe'e" would just identify the addressee as in "Thank you, sir" or "I already know that, John." It wouldn't really mean "I hereby call your attention" although I suppose that could happen incidentally. Presumably that would be your "w(ok)e'e", which I hadn't thought about until you mentioned it today:
we'e!
Hey you!
we'e, co [le'e rslfe'e] tze'e!
Hey; I hereby make this identification: you [the addressee] are there!
Hey, you there!
If anyone wants that first-person "mi'e" pseudovocative sort of thing, and I think "co Pa'a" would cover that. I also think it would work with other variables, perhaps making the most sense with the "V'i" series:
co [la'i csna’eka’i] mlta'i la djne nlcaka'i
I hereby make this identification: [discussion topic] a'i are cats. John likes them.
As for cats, John likes them.
In effect, "co" could be a topic marker as well as a vocative marker, depending on the variable in the following formula. I would say that pragmatically, it'd be used with one implicitly bound variable to provide identifying information.
> If that's not good enough, I would guess "co" = "I hereby make the
> [possibly new] identification such that" would work. I think the vocative
> is worth this short form. A lot of languages get by with null.
>
> co me'e ndi! And!
>
> co prne'e! Hey people!
>
> co mlte'e! Hey cat!
>
> co ge'e me'e ndi me'e xrxe. O And and Jorge.
That's is the one that made me go with the k version.
ce'eko go mo ndi mo xrxe. O And and Jorge.
The three-syllable inflected vocative particle helps save exactly one syllable here (potentially two syllables if shortened to "ceko"), presumably weirdly binding rslf- to "o" in the process (and that would have to spelled out in a special rule). Meanwhile it adds one syllable to
co tze'e
ce'eko tzo
It takes at least three (potentially at least two) uses of "e'e" to gain an advantage over "co".
co je xkre'e mlte'e
ce'eko je xkro mlto
The real point though is simply that "e'e", not "o", is Xorban for "you" which is why And wanted it in the vocative particle stem. If we really think the extra syllable is a problem then why not admit "yu" (since English happens to have a vocalic form) as a variable. That and "ay" for "a'a", and "oy" for "o'e", would shorten the language considerably.
> coke'e could stand for "co rslfe'e" if deemed desirable. I actually see
> no problem with "co sme'e" though.
>
> coke'e! = co sme'e! You!
I'd rather not have cV forms without formula complements. If we wanted
something like that I would go with "woke'e", or just "we'e".
Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking here. Not only does "coke'e" violate the grammar, it's not really needed for "co", since it makes little sense to make an identification without providing some information. It's infrequent and a bit marked for people to say "Thank you, you" or "I already know that, you", and when it is needed it's covered by co sme'e.
> Maybe "co prne'e" is more polite. Also possible:
>
> co tze'e! You there! (tz < Lojban -taz- < Lojban ta)
>
> co sma'a.
> I'm here. / Present.
>
> co ma'a mke
> I'm Mike
If "co" is used to call the attention of the addressee, then it
doesn't seem to make much sense to use it to sign a message.
co F := ca je F ba'a jnde'e
Hereby F and I call your attention.
Then "co me'e mke" = "Hereby you are Mike and I call your attention".
[ca?] ma'a xrxe