Baby Words: "you're right" and orders.

[Robin Lee Powell]

1. How would you mark a {ko} that's an order? I use {e'o} for
requests. For "You must do this!" I've been using {ga'i}, but it's
a tad unsatisfying.

2. How would you say "that's right!" or "you're right!", i.e. when
the kid brings me the object I've asked for? I use {i'e} for lots
of situations like that, but that doesn't convey correctness
particularily. Is {drani} OK here? I'm not clear on what can do in
the x1.

-Robin

--
http://intelligence.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

[selpa'i]

la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e

> 1. How would you mark a {ko} that's an order? I use {e'o} for
> requests. For "You must do this!" I've been using {ga'i}, but it's
> a tad unsatisfying.

The currently proposed BPFK meaning for {.e'i} is just that. {.e'i}
becomes an irrealis attitudinal marking a command/order. Although this
may seem like a big change to definition of the word, it seems to be the
only way to express orders of this kind, so:

{.e'i do na broda}

I'm not sure I am 100% behind this definition, but the above argument
speaks for it. This is also why I approve of the new {.e'e} definition.
(I also never found the old definition very useful.)

> 2. How would you say "that's right!" or "you're right!", i.e. when
> the kid brings me the object I've asked for? I use {i'e} for lots
> of situations like that, but that doesn't convey correctness
> particularily. Is {drani} OK here? I'm not clear on what can do in
> the x1.

{drani} is very flexible, thanks to the x2.

{.i'e do drani} is certainly fine. "You are correct in that you picked
the right object/what object you picked."

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[la gleki]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 8:34:24 PM UTC+4, Robin Powell wrote:

1.  How would you mark a {ko} that's an order?  I use {e'o} for
requests.  For "You must do this!" I've been using {ga'i}, but it's
a tad unsatisfying.

Now I wonder how to say "You have to do this" if {e'i} is taken.

It's time to update jbovlaste definitions because they are being translated to other languages and these wrong definitions are being multiplied.

[.arpis.]

Reading the BPFK definition of {e'i} here, I feel like {.e'i do na broda} would translate to "You must not do {broda}", while {e'i ko na broda} would translate to "Don't {broda}". If this understanding is right, then there's no problem expressing what gleki wants, and selpa'i is subtly wrong. If I'm wrong, could someone point me to an explanation of why?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[MorphemeAddict]

What's the difference between using {e'i} and using {ko}? When would you use {e'i} without {ko}, and vice versa? 

stevo (aka la stevon)

[selpa'i]

la .arpis. cu cusku di'e

> Reading the BPFK definition of {e'i} here

> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals>, I

> feel like {.e'i do na broda} would translate to "You must not do
> {broda}", while {e'i ko na broda} would translate to "Don't {broda}".

I'm not sure where you get that difference from.

> If this understanding is right, then there's no problem expressing what
> gleki wants, and selpa'i is subtly wrong. If I'm wrong, could someone
> point me to an explanation of why?

It's hard to tell what the difference is between a command with {ko} and
a command with {do}. One could go as far as to say that {ko} + {.e'o}
results in a sort of redundancy.

In particular, is there a difference between (1) and (2), and if so,
what is it?

(1) .i .e'o do mi sidju
"Please help me."

(2) .i .e'o ko mi sidju
"Please help me."

I think it is important to keep in mind that these irrealis attitudinals
are really illocutionaries, and so it is often more useful to translate
them as "I hereby request that you help me". The only difference I could
imagine between (1) and (2) is that there might be a slight additional
focus on the {ko} in (2), probably because -- when refactored -- the
{ko'oi} attaches to the {do} as opposed to the whole utterance.

[selpa'i]

la .stevon. cu cusku di'e

> What's the difference between using {e'i} and using {ko}? When would you
> use {e'i} without {ko}, and vice versa?

{ko} is a vague imperative, it can be used for requests and commands
alike, it can be polite or not.

{.e'i} (under the proposed definition) is explicitly a command, much
like {.e'o} is explicitly a request.

[MorphemeAddict]

You're using imperative and command as if they were different, but to me they are synonyms. What does each mean to you? 

mu'o mi'e stevon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Robin Lee Powell]

That's because in English, all non-request imperatives are commands;
if you drop the "please" in "please go", it's a (rather rude)
command.

{ko klama} is ambiguous between "Please go" and "Go!" (and "I would
really appreciate it if you would go" and "Go! (points gun at head)"
and "FUCKING GO ASSHOLE!" and so on), and selpa'i is using
"imperative" to describe what {ko klama} is; no idea if other people
use that term for that.

-Robin

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:07:20PM -0400, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> You're using imperative and command as if they were different, but to me
> they are synonyms. What does each mean to you?
>
> mu'o mi'e stevon
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > la .stevon. cu cusku di'e
> >
> > What's the difference between using {e'i} and using {ko}? When would you
> >> use {e'i} without {ko}, and vice versa?
> >>
> >
> > {ko} is a vague imperative, it can be used for requests and commands
> > alike, it can be polite or not.
> >
> > {.e'i} (under the proposed definition) is explicitly a command, much like
> > {.e'o} is explicitly a request.
> >
> >
> > mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "lojban" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> > email to lojban+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<lojban%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/lojban?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en>
> > .
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
> > .

> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[.arpis.]

In particular, is there a difference between (1) and (2), and if so, what is it?

(1) .i .e'o do mi sidju
    "Please help me."

(2) .i .e'o ko mi sidju
    "Please help me.

Yes, there is a difference, but it's the sort that probably won't matter outside of poetry or literary analysis. As you say, the latter is more direct.

To take another example, contrast {.e'o ko cliva} with {.e'o do cliva}: in the latter, I might be more aware of (and maybe more interested in) the possibility that a bouncer would throw you out.

MorphemAddict: Imperative refers to a grammatical construct which carries the pragmatics that the listener do something; command refers to any statement that has such pragmatics and is also given from a (presumed) position of power.

"Close the window." is an imperative but may or may not be a command; "Please close the window." is an imperative but probably not a command; "You'd better close the window now!" is a command but not an imperative.

[la gleki]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:27:41 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

In particular, is there a difference between (1) and (2), and if so, what is it?

(1) .i .e'o do mi sidju
    "Please help me."

(2) .i .e'o ko mi sidju
    "Please help me.

Yes, there is a difference, but it's the sort that probably won't matter outside of poetry or literary analysis. As you say, the latter is more direct.

To take another example, contrast {.e'o ko cliva} with {.e'o do cliva}: in the latter, I might be more aware of (and maybe more interested in) the possibility that a bouncer would throw you out.

if we assume that UI = sei ke'a broda se'u 

and then

.i brode sei ke'a broda se'u ~= lo nu brode cu broda

then

e'o do cliva ~= mi cpedu lo nu do cliva

ko cliva = do ko'oi cliva ~= mi [imperatively/hortatively say ] lo nu ba'e do cliva

e'o ko cliva = e'o do ko'oi cliva ~= mi cpedu lo nu do cliva ije mi [imperatively/hortatively say ] lo nu ba'e do cliva

MorphemAddict: Imperative refers to a grammatical construct which carries the pragmatics that the listener do something; command refers to any statement that has such pragmatics and is also given from a (presumed) position of power.

"Close the window." is an imperative but may or may not be a command; "Please close the window." is an imperative but probably not a command; "You'd better close the window now!" is a command but not an imperative.

As many mix hortatives and imperatives then it's probably beter to call {ko'oi} a generalised version of imperatives and hortatives as it is hinted in the notes to this word.

[la gleki]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 9:14:43 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

Reading the BPFK definition of {e'i} here, I feel like {.e'i do na broda} would translate to "You must not do {broda}", while {e'i ko na broda} would translate to "Don't {broda}". If this understanding is right, then there's no problem expressing what gleki wants, and selpa'i is subtly wrong. If I'm wrong, could someone point me to an explanation of why?

What I do want is to know how to say

1. Don't eat! (not necessarily in a command voice)

2. You have to eat.

3. You should eat.

[selpa'i]

la gleki cu cusku di'e

> What I do want is to know how to say
> 1. Don't eat! (not necessarily in a command voice)

�lu ko na citka li'u�

> 2. You have to eat.

ma smuni zoi gy. have to .gy

.i �lu do bilga lo nu citka li'u�
.a �lu do nitcu lo nu citka li'u�
.a �lu sarcu fa lo nu do citka li'u�
.a lo drata

> 3. You should eat.

�lu .ei do citka li'u�

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:15:29 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

la gleki cu cusku di'e
> What I do want is to know how to say
> 1. Don't eat! (not necessarily in a command voice)

�lu ko na citka li'u�

> 2. You have to eat.

ma smuni zoi gy. have to .gy

.i �lu do bilga lo nu citka li'u�
.a �lu do nitcu lo nu citka li'u�
.a �lu sarcu fa lo nu do citka li'u�
.a lo drata

la'a mi pu srera i zo e'u ja zo ei ja zo ko'oi ji'asai banzu 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121111114013AA06nav

> 3. You should eat.

�lu .ei do citka li'u�

lu e'u do  citka li'u su'oroi mapti ji'a vau pe'i 

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 01:15:29PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> la gleki cu cusku di'e
> >What I do want is to know how to say

[snip]

>
> >3. You should eat.
>
> �lu .ei do citka li'u�

No; {.ei} refers to the *speaker's* obligation. Some possibilities:
{.ei dai}, {.e'u}, {da'i lo nu do citka cu xamgu}. It depends on
what you mean by "should", though; in English this covers {vrude}
and {djica} and {pluka} and {bilga} and {xamgu}, at the very least.

For the generic, I'd use {.e'u}, I think.

-Robin

[selpa'i]

la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 01:15:29PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
>> la gleki cu cusku di'e
>>> What I do want is to know how to say
> [snip]
>>
>>> 3. You should eat.
>>
>> �lu .ei do citka li'u�
>
> No; {.ei} refers to the *speaker's* obligation.

In my opinion, attitudinals express the speaker's feelings or opinions
on a matter, but they need not be directed at the speaker. In "You
should eat" it is the speaker who thinks that the other person should
eat, but it's still about the general situation, not about themselves,
if that makes sense. It's the speaker's opinion about a situation,
whether or not that situation involves them.

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:42:00PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e
> >1. How would you mark a {ko} that's an order? I use {e'o} for
> >requests. For "You must do this!" I've been using {ga'i}, but
> >it's a tad unsatisfying.
>
> The currently proposed BPFK meaning for {.e'i} is just that.
> {.e'i} becomes an irrealis attitudinal marking a command/order.
> Although this may seem like a big change to definition of the
> word, it seems to be the only way to express orders of this kind,
> so:
>
> {.e'i do na broda}
>
> I'm not sure I am 100% behind this definition, but the above
> argument speaks for it.

Given the incredibly tiny usage of {.e'i} according to the corpus
application (250 uses on IRC, and essentially none elsewhere,
especially if you ignore xorxes' usages since this was his
tinkering), I've decided that my household dialect will, in fact,
use {.e'i} as a command imperative.

I do not, at this time, mean to impose this on anyone else, but I
thouht it was worth publically noting.

-Robin

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:56:57 PM UTC+4, Robin Powell wrote:

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:42:00PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e
> >1.  How would you mark a {ko} that's an order?  I use {e'o} for
> >requests.  For "You must do this!" I've been using {ga'i}, but
> >it's a tad unsatisfying.
>
> The currently proposed BPFK meaning for {.e'i} is just that.
> {.e'i} becomes an irrealis attitudinal marking a command/order.
> Although this may seem like a big change to definition of the
> word, it seems to be the only way to express orders of this kind,
> so:
>
> {.e'i do na broda}
>
> I'm not sure I am 100% behind this definition, but the above
> argument speaks for it.

Given the incredibly tiny usage of {.e'i} according to the corpus
application (250 uses on IRC, and essentially none elsewhere,
especially if you ignore xorxes' usages since this was his
tinkering), I've decided that my household dialect will, in fact,
use {.e'i} as a command imperative.

who has approved of it:

1.camgusmis

2.gleki

who is against it:

1.

[Robin Lee Powell]

There are many people who would have been against it back in the
day, but the only one I know who is still active is Arnt.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

My interpretation of .e'i would have been that it would be expressed by
someone who is under orders, not giving orders. I'm not sure that this
usage is entirely in conflict with your idea, though I think it would be
one receiving the order who would express it. You want the kids to feel
constrained/compelled; you don't feel that way yourself, so perhaps
empathy needs to be invoked.

Or the scale could be changed in definition to reflect actual usage.

I'll reserve judgement until I think about it a bit more (though of
course I am "against" all change on principle until we have the baseline
CLL %^)

lojbab


--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

[.arpis.]

Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such different concepts that we want two separate short words for them, especially at the expense of having a short way to be explicit about commands?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[John E Clifford]

What is the problem about commands? as opposed to requests, pleas and demands?  These aren't linguistic, although we have vocabulary for them.  What else?

---

From: .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com>
To: Lojban <loj...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Robin does the xorban (was Re: [lojban] Baby Words: "you're right" and orders.)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

.arpis. wrote:
> Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such different concepts that we
> want two separate short words for them, especially at the expense of
> having a short way to be explicit about commands?

They certainly are different emotionally, and we are talking about words
expressing emotional affect.

I do many things out of a feeling of obligation that I do not in fact
feel constrained/compelled to do.

More importantly, a command is not really an emotional affect. Perhaps
"feeling in authority" would be an emotional affect that might mark
something as a command, but that is probably the ga'i that Robin found
unsatisfying (per his original post on the topic). koga'i would seem to
me to mean "do it, because >I< said so".

Myself, I've always considered that an unmarked ko is a command, which
is where ".e'osai ko sarji" originated from - without it, I am
commanding the listener to support Lojban, which is an unseemly sort of
thing to command. .e'o and other words can soften a command to
something weaker than a command, but unmarked, it is a command for real.

Wanting to emphasize the command nature, perhaps for
immediacy/intensity, I might mark the ko itself with cai (which
conveniently, not by design, happens to be similar in sound to "ca" for
"now"), but none of the indicators.

.e'unai and .e'anai are often attitudinals one would attach to a
negative command (possibly on the ko, or possibly on the selbri), and
marking them with cai, would add emphasis to the negative (and
presumably there is a na in the sentence as well).

If we needed something other than ko to mark a command, it would have to
be a discursive, rather than an attitudinal. Same grammar, but
discursives are CVV rather than VV. But any such marker seems like it
would be redundant to me.

[la gleki]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:32:03 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:

.arpis. wrote:
> Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such different concepts that we
> want two separate short words for them, especially at the expense of
> having a short way to be explicit about commands?

I just wanted to say "I had to create certain corrections in order to fulfill the task"

and "I should have done this earlier".

I hadn't have any problems with translations before changing the meaning of {e'i} was proposed.

Hey, may be create another word?

[selpa'i]

la gleki cu cusku di'e

> I just wanted to say "I had to create certain corrections in order to
> fulfill the task"

pe'i zo nitcu prane lo ka mapti

[la gleki]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:59:59 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

la gleki cu cusku di'e
> I just wanted to say "I had to create certain corrections in order to
> fulfill the task"

pe'i zo nitcu prane lo ka mapti

mi na pu nitcu i mi na pu kaidji lo ka mulgau lo se zukte i ku'i mi pu jai se bapli

[Robin Lee Powell]

Yes, the point here is that this is a change to the language. This
is why I used the word "dialect".

The motivation for the change is that {.e'i} is almost totally
unused, it overlaps with {.ei}, and the other things in that
category, like {.e'o}, are other-directed.

-Robin

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 12:32:03PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier, President
and Founder - LLG wrote:
> .arpis. wrote:
> >Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such different concepts
> >that we want two separate short words for them, especially at the
> >expense of having a short way to be explicit about commands?
>
> They certainly are different emotionally,

I disagree.

> I do many things out of a feeling of obligation that I do not in
> fact feel constrained/compelled to do.

Then our definitions of those words differ.

> More importantly, a command is not really an emotional affect.

I *utterly* disagree. When I'm yelling at my child to do something,
"you must do this thing" is an emotional affect.

> Perhaps "feeling in authority" would be an emotional affect that
> might mark something as a command, but that is probably the ga'i
> that Robin found unsatisfying (per his original post on the
> topic). koga'i would seem to me to mean "do it, because >I< said
> so".

Yeah, that's what I was going for.

> Myself, I've always considered that an unmarked ko is a command,
> which is where ".e'osai ko sarji" originated from - without it, I am
> commanding the listener to support Lojban, which is an unseemly sort
> of thing to command.

Interesting.

> Wanting to emphasize the command nature, perhaps for
> immediacy/intensity, I might mark the ko itself with cai (which
> conveniently, not by design, happens to be similar in sound to
> "ca" for "now"), but none of the indicators.

Also very interesting, due to an unrelated discussion about using
CAI to mark random words in the language.

-Robin

[John E Clifford]

If the batfuckers ever meet again, they might just take UI apart and start over.  Or not, of course. But it is in bad shape, based on bad original definitions (back to JCB) and years of uncontrolled overlays, which have buried much that was at least not awful.

---

From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 5:31 PM

Subject: Re: Robin does the xorban (was Re: [lojban] Baby Words: "you're right" and orders.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[la gleki]

then tell me how can i differentiate between "I had to/was under constraint/was forced to do that"  and "I should do that" and "I should have done that".

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:03 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

then tell me how can i differentiate between "I had to/was under constraint/was forced to do that"  and "I should do that" and "I should have done that".

PU se bapli lonu mi ...

mi PU bilga ...

?

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[la gleki]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:11:37 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:03 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

then tell me how can i differentiate between "I had to/was under constraint/was forced to do that"  and "I should do that" and "I should have done that".

PU se bapli lonu mi ...

mi PU bilga ...

li'a i ku'i mi nitcu lo cmavo be zo ui 

?

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--

mi mi pesxu 

[la gleki]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:22:39 AM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:

On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:11:37 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:03 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

then tell me how can i differentiate between "I had to/was under constraint/was forced to do that"  and "I should do that" and "I should have done that".

PU se bapli lonu mi ...

mi PU bilga ...

li'a i ku'i mi nitcu lo cmavo be zo ui 

ji'a

.ei:.e'i :: lo terjavni:lo bilga = ought to:have to

.i pei

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:31:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 12:32:03PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier,
> President and Founder - LLG wrote:
> > .arpis. wrote:
> > >Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such different
> > >concepts that we want two separate short words for them,
> > >especially at the expense of having a short way to be explicit
> > >about commands?
> >
> > They certainly are different emotionally,
>
> I disagree.
>
> > I do many things out of a feeling of obligation that I do not in
> > fact feel constrained/compelled to do.
>
> Then our definitions of those words differ.

I've thought about this more, and I guess I do see an emotional
difference between "I should really do the kitchen because RA would
like me to do so" and "If I don't get my taxes in, I'm going to
jail". So I take it back.

-Robin

[Michael Turniansky]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

2.  How would you say "that's right!" or "you're right!", i.e. when
the kid brings me the object I've asked for?  I use {i'e} for lots
of situations like that, but that doesn't convey correctness

particularily.  Is {drani} OK here?  I'm not clear on what can do in
the x1.

  While I agree with selpa'i that drani is fine, you also have the option of using the CLL (i.e. non-xorxes) version of "e'e[se'inai]" here 

       --gejyspa