Received: from mail-lb0-f185.google.com ([209.85.217.185]:45884) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XsBoL-00065M-N6; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:20 -0800 Received: by mail-lb0-f185.google.com with SMTP id z12sf255299lbi.2 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=rhxiNGo/ylrpp29MRhzUBaaBYLCQGGToyvdpdTJO1b0=; b=NItIf/T1/mZxeOduc+RRsETPzGSa9z4xTrGeyXbiAIwIrGABrKRIghKlJvsNGKPFj8 +WcGuhPD59VfHpgl2INDZQgaqrRMJQdHuNA1aq+CDRMERuz2w/0YQEcCA3JDDyVo5Vg5 8xhPdUaEhyCQEJ0Aw0dEoZx/f7D95SQ142a31K9LFnjN8rpDclFRxvqfS37VfSTHF2xg mXJDwUcLRi2E5Fc8DVo6DFt5T7MivB7IHlHAKEomCSHAkm2icEtZ5dEAEw7ETqH3b16H 0tdkig6/puzYmJChHdkSlgPTMrKkJEysA8Kpz89czQWhUNBKMIn76kDuhwT0s/eQKp7R Iy0Q== X-Received: by 10.180.77.227 with SMTP id v3mr18065wiw.11.1416667030877; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.75.48 with SMTP id z16ls120848wiv.37.gmail; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.8.9 with SMTP id n9mr1282210wia.6.1416667030568; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5si130113wib.2.2014.11.22.06.37.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::229; Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y19so8856802wgg.0 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.11.65 with SMTP id o1mr6456246wib.22.1416667030432; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.87.229 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:37:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <407A8993FE744C7FB7AA19EDAB90EE87@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 17:37:10 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] {e'i} in usage and in the wiki From: Gleki Arxokuna To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c259bc1d32a10508737fa2 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c259bc1d32a10508737fa2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2014-11-22 16:43 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas : > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < > gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> How can "I have to go" and "I should go" be subtle? Their difference is >> very important. >> Why losing it? >> > > Which difference do you think is being lost? > > .e'i is part of a series of illocutionaries e'a/e'e/e'i/e'o/e'u with the > speaker's attitude towards an action to be performed (typically but not > necessarily) by someone else: > > .e'a: I hereby grant permission for this to take place: > .e'e: I hereby give encouragement for this to take place: > .e'i: I hereby impart instructions for this to take place: (or to use > "constraint": I hereby impose a constraint for this to take place:) > .e'o: I hereby pose a request for this to take place: > .e'u: I hereby make a suggestion for this to take place: > > .ei is used to express how one feels the world ought to be: > > .ei: It ought to be the case that this takes place: > But that's how BPFK pages repurposed ei and e'i. Usage tells that: ei mi cliva - conventions/rules dictate that I leave. e'i mi cliva - the situation forces me to leave. ei is a UI for {sei mi te javni}. e'i is a UI for {sei mi bilga}. So my question is why e'i was moved from {ei} group into {e'V} group turning it into kinda imperative marker. > So we have: > > .ei mi cliva > It ought to be the case that I leave. > I ought to leave. > I should leave. > > .e'i mi cliva > I hereby impart instructions that I leave. > (Direct first person singular imperative not available in English, but > "e'i mi'o cliva" "Let's leave".) > > [ju'a] mi bilga lo ka cliva > [I assert that] I am under the obligation of leaving. > I have to leave. > > There are circumstances when all three can be felicitously used, even > though their precise meanings are somewhat different. > > Examples with "mi" as the agent are not always the best to show how UIs > work, because it makes it harder to disentangle the effect on "mi" as the > speaker from the effect on "mi" as the agent. With "do" we have: > > .ei do cliva > It ought to be the case that you leave. > You ought to leave. > You should leave. (But not because I say so.) > It's best if you leave. > > .e'i do cliva > I hereby impart instructions that you leave. > You should leave. (Because I say so. An instruction.) > Leave. > > [ju'a] do bilga lo ka cliva > [I assert that] You are under the obligation of leaving. > You have to leave. (A statement, not an instruction.) > > With a third person: > > .ei la .alis. cu cliva > It ought to be the case that Alice leaves. > Alice ought to leave. > Alice should leave. (But not because I say so.) > It's best if Alice leaves. > > .e'i la .alis. cu cliva > I hereby impart instructions that Alice leaves. > Alice should leave. (Because I say so. An instruction.) > (Let Alice leave.) > > [ju'a] la .alis. cu bilga lo ka cliva > [I assert that] Alice is under the obligation of leaving. > Alice has to leave. (A statement, not an instruction.) > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BPFK" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a11c259bc1d32a10508737fa2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-11-22 16:43 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.co= m>:

On Sat= , Nov 22, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail= .com> wrote:

How can "I have to go" and "I should go" be subtl= e? Their difference is very important.
Why losing it?
=

Which difference do you= think is being lost?

=C2=A0.e'i is part of a = series of illocutionaries e'a/e'e/e'i/e'o/e'u with the = speaker's attitude towards an action to be performed (typically but not= necessarily) by someone else:

.e'a: I hereby = grant permission for this to take place:
.e'e: I hereby give = encouragement for this to take place:
.e'i: I hereby impart i= nstructions for this to take place: (or to use "constraint": I he= reby impose a constraint for this to take place:)=C2=A0
.e'o:= I hereby pose a request for this to take place:
.e'u: I here= by make a suggestion for this to take place:

.ei i= s used to express how one feels the world ought to be:

=
.ei: It ought to be the case that this takes place:
<= /div>

But that's how BPFK pages repurpo= sed ei and e'i.=C2=A0
Usage tells that:
ei mi cliva= - conventions/rules dictate that I leave.
e'i mi cliva - the= situation forces me to leave.
ei is a UI for {sei mi te javni}.<= /div>
e'i is a UI for {sei mi bilga}.

So m= y question is why e'i was moved from {ei} group into {e'V} group tu= rning it into kinda imperative marker.


So we have:

=C2=A0.= ei mi cliva
=C2=A0It ought to be the case that I leave.
=C2=A0I ought to leave.
=C2=A0I should leave.

=C2=A0.e'i mi cliva
=C2=A0I hereby impart instructions= that I leave.
=C2=A0(Direct first person singular imperative not= available in English, but "e'i mi'o cliva" "Let'= ;s leave".)

=C2=A0[ju'a] mi bilga lo ka c= liva
=C2=A0[I assert that] I am under the obligation of leaving.<= /div>
=C2=A0I have to leave.

There are circums= tances when all three can be felicitously used, even though their precise m= eanings are somewhat different.

Examples with &quo= t;mi" as the agent are not always the best to show how UIs work, becau= se it makes it harder to disentangle the effect on "mi" as the sp= eaker from the effect on "mi" as the agent. With "do" w= e have:

=C2=A0.ei do cliva
=C2=A0It ough= t to be the case that you leave.
=C2=A0You ought to leave.
<= div>=C2=A0You should leave. (But not because I say so.)
=C2=A0It&= #39;s best if you leave.

=C2=A0.e'i do cliva
=C2=A0I hereby impart instructions that you leave.
=C2= =A0You should leave. (Because I say so. An instruction.)
=C2=A0Le= ave.

=C2=A0[ju'a] do bilga lo ka cliva
=C2=A0[I assert that] You are under the obligation of leaving.
=C2=A0You have to leave. (A statement, not an instruction.)

=
With a third person:

=C2=A0.ei la = .alis. cu cliva
=C2=A0It ought to be the case that Alice leaves.<= /div>
=C2=A0Alice ought to leave.
=C2=A0Alice should leave. (= But not because I say so.)
=C2=A0It's best if Alice leaves.

=C2=A0.e'i la .alis. cu cliva
=C2=A0I= hereby impart instructions that Alice leaves.
=C2=A0Alice should= leave. (Because I say so. An instruction.)
=C2=A0(Let Alice leav= e.)

=C2=A0[ju'a] la .alis. cu bilga lo ka cliv= a
=C2=A0[I assert that] Alice is under the obligation of leaving.=
=C2=A0Alice has to leave. (A statement, not an instruction.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes
=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a11c259bc1d32a10508737fa2--