De-emphatic particle

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:     Mon, 29 Jun 1992 18:26:04 BST
>  From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD>
>
>  I have got hold of a copy of Martin's Dagur grammar, and I am fairly
>  sure that the 'de-emphatic particle' we were told of is a
>  misunderstanding of his admittedly scanty description.

I was left with exactly the same impression from John's quote from
Ramsey's _Languages of China_.  It says there that "the particle
-(i)ni 'as for' reduces emphasis on the word to which it attaches".
Now `as for' is often used to gloss the Arabic _7amma:_, and I suppose
here it means that the Dagur particle serves to introduce a new topic,
as the Japanese _wa_.  With Lojban's current wealth of discursives, I
don't think we need that.

>  The question is, if we find that Dagur indeed lacks this linguistic
>  feature that I for one thought very strange,

Yes, emphasising things in order to deemphasise them, as a lojbo se
bangu (I've forgotten who) put it.

>  do we remove it from the list of proposed extensions for the next
>  Lojban release, or having thought of it, do we leave it there in case
>  somebody does find a use for it?

I vote for the first.

If we decide to leave it for a certain time and kill it if no one uses
it, I predict that someone will go to great lengths to find a context
where it kind of seems usable, and will use it just for the hell of it.
Either that, or I know nothing about human nature.

Ivan