On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, And Rosta
<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
Mike S., On 16/09/2012 20:05:
> "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!
I note for the record it doesn't have to be _e'e_; any form could be assigned to the interjection for hailing.
I agree, but I doubt that we will find a more fitting interpretation for "we'e" given the mnemonicity of "e'e".
> we'e, co [le'e rslfe'e] tze'e!
So the "calling/paging Jorge" announcements they have in airports, would be "we'e co me'e xrxe".
Yes, that's a good example. We probably want "we'e" defined so that it's not limited to casual contexts as English "hey" sometimes is.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
That's a good idea.
Co takes as its complement a formula, right? What happens when the formula contains more than one of a'a/e'e/V'i? E.g. "O my darling" vs "It's your lover here" -- co prma'ake'e.
I think co has to be rethought a bit...
Hmm, I guess that would be:
co prma'ake'e
I hereby make these identifications: I am such and you are such that I love you.
I hereby identify me and you, noting that I love you.
?O my beloved; me someone who loves you
It seems that often "a'a" could be elided without much pragmatic impact; "e'e" could drop out without a clear impact rarely if ever:
djna'a, co ptfe'eka'a.
I know, you my father, me with you as father.
approx= djna'a, co ptfe'e.
I know, father.
not really= djna'a, co ptfo'eka'a.
I know, me someone with a father.
So it's not certain that there's a problem. In the first place, if we are going to have 1st person pseudovocative, why not a 1p inclusive plural pseudovocative as well? Another way of looking at it: pragmatically, the 2p is more salient than the 1p in a "co"-sentence, because the identity of 1p is generally less in doubt than that of the 2p. Therefore, whenever "e'e" appears in "co F", pragmatically we will interpret it as having vocative force, regardless of what else appears:
co prma'ake'e = O my beloved
djna'a, co ptfe'eka'a. = I know, my father.
Furthermore, sometimes we may *want* to introduce two topics at once as in the English "former / latter" convention.
co je grka'i mlte'i, sa prna zmddjcaka'i sa prna zmddjcake'i.
As far as dogs and cats, some people prefer the former, some people prefer the latter.
We would have to use cV'ik- twice, in which case I really have to say that I don't think anyone is going use different shorter variables to save syllables for what's tantamount to an indirect binding of the same thing:
ca'ika'i ce'ike'i je grka'i mlte'i, sa prna zmddjcaka'i sa prna zmddjcake'i.
... adds seven syllables. If we use short variables and paraphrase then:
ca'iko grko ce'iko mlto, sa prna zmddjcaka'i sa prna zmddjcake'i.
... adds five and removes three, adding two syllables total. But we lose the informational structure suggesting that a'i and e'i are co-topics. Another issue is that for reasons I will explain elsewhere, I think it would be preferable to change the grammar so that only one illocutionary marker occurs per sentence. But that's a side issue.
Here's one more interesting example with "e'e".
co ptfe'e xe sme jnve'eke
Father, what do you think? (vocative)
= As far as you father, what do you think? (topic)
There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between a second person topical _expression_ and a vocative; the two translations seem to have the same logic meaning and illocutionary force. A minor difference does seem to arise when "e'e" is not part of the following sentence.
co ptfe'e le tfe jnva'ake
Father, that's what I think. (vocative)
?As far as you father, that's what I think. (topic)
In this case, the topic-translation may be questioned because the English "as far as" + topic suggests to the listener that he should expect a comment about the topic. (I don't think we need a way to enforce in Xorban; that's what "l/s/r-" already do!) Even then, I don't think the English is broken; "le tfe jnva'ake" could be comment on a question that the father asked earlier. But most likely, we'd probably just translate it with the vocative without much hesitation. In fact it seems literally impossible to introduce a second person topic without creating a vocative effect.
I don't think we need to encode every fussy English nuance into Xorban so I am going to say let's go with "co" as a topic particle that doubles as vocative particle with "e'e". It's short, versatile, and useful. If we do need more precision, then co'V can subdivide co the way ce was subdivided. That's my proposal.
>> 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.
So does this mean we have ce'ek, ca'ak, cV'ik? That solves the problem I noted above.
"Co" could replace all of those.
> 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.
I agree that a'a, e'e, o'e should be given VV forms, ideally with a bit of iconicity, so that Me contains I, You contains U, ME+YOU contains both. Maybe, ei=Me, ou=You, e(i)u=Me+You, oi=o'e; and ai, au are available as extra simple variables when the plain Vs run out.
ceika ma ndi [not in itself a valediction or sign-off, of course]