Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:49:40 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MzH8V-0000BW-Dq; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:48:32 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MzH7I-0000BE-IL for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:47:17 -0700 Received: from mail-yx0-f202.google.com ([209.85.210.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MzH75-0000A9-EB for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:47:11 -0700 Received: by yxe40 with SMTP id 40so2922412yxe.28 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:46:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IXz6rQaBbAAAFaTFkhZE0yFndI5mhmNj43W8OP1K/kM=; b=FyiwpQ0022eY7FE5IBnD6pGwuNNIfMe7eA8uoJMpsQpYnsZwbmQ/WRkqCoBO2wUM83 BVIsBPieShFRYqCwuBJfMfggg1iHuPT7tRqr6ShvMXUOHT4K1ugIfNt6sSMcpBxtQWAw VnC3Z0KNUJYjElFoDGJDLKcm6u0vE1PXNDzT8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Q1+NHX5restqIwCiX5jvE1VQE1cgxGdvElxpo2t2PrR3w6R8Ta1fs6iPyLqng+6VQE MvlQcfkK/viC6c5i1cUHLxjWuGj/R9g39n70PrH5sqLMOlFx4GifRkdiG4RVddcTyI38 s93EUblnRbwE5JRL58RHu79eaTR3TMvp83Cm8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.163.10 with SMTP id l10mr5224461ybe.223.1255816004391; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:46:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20091017213311.GE3040@mercury.ccil.org> References: <587457860910170026n7c7f93adh20d7eeb05a4081cb@mail.gmail.com> <20091017080522.GD3040@mercury.ccil.org> <977963.86617.qm@web50412.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20091017213311.GE3040@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:46:44 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300910171446x4d5a5acfq2cfc7ec5edbc8099@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: What would happen if xu and ko were put together? From: Luke Bergen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd48b9ad857a404762872e7 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 10305 Lines: 249 --000e0cd48b9ad857a404762872e7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hmmm, do you think that maybe this is a place where sapir wharf comes into play? {.i ko klama ma} seems absurd or meaningless, but maybe that's just because my brain is so mired in "you can't ask a question and give a command at once". Maybe something like this statement could make sense given a context like the following: (A is running along) B: Hey A where are you going (oh don't stop on my account). Effectively trying to say "continue going, but answer my question, where are you going?" The lojban for this would be {.i ko klama ma} maybe. On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:33 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Lindar Greenwood scripsit: > > > Not everybody feels that way, John. There are a few people that agree > > with me in the essential interpretation of the "ko mo" problem. {.i > > ko klama ma}, to me, means something like, "Go wherever you're going, > > but tell me where it is.". > > That would convince me if "do klama ma" meant "Tell me where you are > going", > but it does not; it means "Where are you going?" It's true that in some > English contexts questions are implicitly commands, as when your boss > says "What are you working on?", but this is not so in the general case: > rather, "Where are you going" means "I ask where you are going", whereas > "Tell me where you are going" means "I command you to tell me where you are > going." > > > I've heard the argument that there's no priority order (which is totally > > irrelevant to the interpretati on, but people keep asserting that it is) > > No, it is relevant. By reinterpreting the question "what?" as a command > "tell me what!", you are effectively giving commanding priority over > asking. If you go the other way, interpreting "Obey!" as "Will you > obey?", you get "Where are you going, and will you obey my command to > go there?" That's the kind of ambiguity we don't want. > > > I am actively commanding somebody to do something, but regardless of > > that command, I would like to know the answer to the question referred > > by {ma}; I am also actively asking somebody a question, and regardless > > of the answer, I would like them to comply with my order. > > I quite agree that you can both ask and command, but I deny that you can > do so in a single speech act; they are inherently two separate speech acts. > > Of course, if the community decides that in the context of a command > "ma" means "tell me what!" rather than "what?", I can only agree that > that's what the language has become. But it seems bizarre to me. > > > However, regarding xu and ko? It sounds like an awkward post-jbogugde > > polite-ism to sound like the English "Could you please ______?". > > That, of course, is an ordinary command tagged for politeness (which is > the way it's done in Chinese, e.g.) > > > As a final note, I feel like a lot of the community is being extremely > > negative in considering interpretations of the language outside of > > the views/opinions of the elite oldbies. > > I do recognize that as a problem. > > > You say with this zealotous fire > > Trust me, I'm not a zealot about much of anything. > > > that ko and ma in the same bridi just doesn't make sense, > > It doesn't make sense to *me*. > > > I really do mean both ".i ko klama zo'e" and ".i do klama ma" at the > > same time, > > I don't think there necessarily has to be a way to express those at the > same time, any more than there's a way to express "I'll go with you" > and "You stink" at the same time. (Or is there?) > > > Even if there was a parse order and you had to read it as ".i do > > klama ma" first, then with 'ko', or vice-versa, I still mean both > > regardless of which one you read first, assuming you have to read it > > as one without the other, then the inverse. > > The "priority" issue, as I've tried to explain above, is not about > which statement is effectively made first, but about which speech act > is dominant. > > > Even if those interpretations are wrong, we can build on that to touch > > up the cracks and seams. > > That is what the "elite oldbies" have always wanted to happen. > > -- > How they ever reached any conclusion at all > is starkly unknowable to the human mind. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett > > > > --000e0cd48b9ad857a404762872e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmmm, do you think that maybe this is a place where sapir wharf comes into = play?=A0 {.i ko klama ma} seems absurd or meaningless, but maybe that's= just because my brain is so mired in "you can't ask a question an= d give a command at once".=A0 Maybe something like this statement coul= d make sense given a context like the following:

(A is running along)
B: Hey A where are you going (oh don't stop= on my account).

Effectively trying to say "continue going, but= answer my question, where are you going?"

The lojban for this = would be {.i ko klama ma} maybe.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:33 PM, John Cowan = <cowan@ccil.org&= gt; wrote:
Lindar Greenwood scripsit:

> Not everybody feels that way, John. There are a few people that agree<= br> > with me in the essential interpretation of the "ko mo" probl= em. {.i
> ko klama ma}, to me, means something like, "Go wherever you'r= e going,
> but tell me where it is.".

That would convince me if "do klama ma" meant "Tell me= where you are going",
but it does not; it means "Where are you going?" =A0It's true= that in some
English contexts questions are implicitly commands, as when your boss
says "What are you working on?", but this is not so in the genera= l case:
rather, "Where are you going" means "I ask where you are goi= ng", whereas
"Tell me where you are going" means "I command you to tell m= e where you are
going."

> I've heard the argument that there's no priority order (which = is totally
> irrelevant to the interpretati on, but people keep asserting tha= t it is)

No, it is relevant. =A0By reinterpreting the question "what?" as = a command
"tell me what!", you are effectively giving commanding priority o= ver
asking. =A0If you go the other way, interpreting "Obey!" as "= ;Will you
obey?", you get "Where are you going, and will you obey my comman= d to
go there?" =A0That's the kind of ambiguity we don't want.

> I am actively commanding somebody to do something, but regardless of > that command, I would like to know the answer to the question referred=
> by {ma}; I am also actively asking somebody a question, and regardless=
> of the answer, I would like them to comply with my order.

I quite agree that you can both ask and command, but I deny that you = can
do so in a single speech act; they are inherently two separate speech acts.=

Of course, if the community decides that in the context of a command
"ma" means "tell me what!" rather than "what?"= ;, I can only agree that
that's what the language has become. =A0But it seems bizarre to me.

> However, regarding xu and ko? It sounds like an awkward post-jbogugde<= br> > polite-ism to sound like the English "Could you please ______?&qu= ot;.

That, of course, is an ordinary command tagged for politeness (which = is
the way it's done in Chinese, e.g.)

> As a final note, I feel like a lot of the community is being extremely=
> negative in considering interpretations of the language outside of
> the views/opinions of the elite oldbies.

I do recognize that as a problem.

> You say with this zealotous fire

Trust me, I'm not a zealot about much of anything.

> that ko and ma in the same bridi just doesn't make sense,

It doesn't make sense to *me*.

> I really do mean both ".i ko klama zo'e" and ".i do= klama ma" at the
> same time,

I don't think there necessarily has to be a way to express those = at the
same time, any more than there's a way to express "I'll go wit= h you"
and "You stink" at the same time. =A0(Or is there?)

> Even if there was a parse order and you had to read it as ".i do<= br> > klama ma" first, then with 'ko', or vice-versa, I still m= ean both
> regardless of which one you read first, assuming you have to read it > as one without the other, then the inverse.

The "priority" issue, as I've tried to explain above, i= s not about
which statement is effectively made first, but about which speech act
is dominant.

> Even if those interpretations are wrong, we can build on that to touch=
> up the cracks and seams.

That is what the "elite oldbies" have always wanted to happ= en.

--
How they ever reached any =A0conclusion at all =A0 =A0<cowan@ccil.org>
is starkly unknowable to the human mind. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett




--000e0cd48b9ad857a404762872e7--