Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:52:13 -0700
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type         :content-transfer-encoding;        b=Ubt2Lr/jMwYwK6t5oFBP+SkEKdYksEnb4DUGDewW5dsjPLzd4pMqVE794ndmr9o6dt         sIjiuLeU5E2HDVZfNNCqKpziSqrk5TZzmruzDmKGLutinbJVLrkrpGxzpdPXvur8d9U5         Z7iIejx84MhBbhZU1CdgxUnkvcr8Wn+zJI0Ns=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <925d17560910180940u60722c34m7f36f7ade0b60dd7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d4e.5e13a4df.380c9bcc@wmconnect.com>	 <925d17560910180940u60722c34m7f36f7ade0b60dd7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:50:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4de8c3930910190650q74a65426xc9210fc7ac61dbc8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: What would happen if xu and ko were put together?
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1912
Lines: 47

2009/10/18 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM,  <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if any of this 'command+question' issue would have arisen if the
>> creators of Lojban had simply chosen an imperative marker, maybe in UI,
>> rather than an imperative pronoun.
>
> You can still wonder what "e'o do klama ma" means. "Where do I suggest
> you go?" or "Where do you go? I suggest you go there." So I don't
> think it's just because of "ko", although I do think "ko" can always
> be replaced by "do"plus an imperative marker ("e'a", "e'e", "e'i",
> "e'o" or "e'u").

I agree.

There is also "pe'u" of selma'o COI. The difference as i see it is
that COIs require an addressee, while UIs don't. I can use "e'i" to
express my own internal sense of imperativeness about something
without specifying who is to be commanded. On the other hand, when i
use "pe'u", an addressee always follows either explicitly or
implicitly. Also, the reason for the speaker to utter "pe'u" need not
arise out of the speaker's own imperative feeling for the bridi; i can
say "klama pe'u" just to put across a command from another person for
social reasons, without indicating any of my personal emotion, which
is not the case with UIs like "e'i".

UIs are not vocative by definition, but they can be in effect, as in
"do .e'i klama", with "e'i" modifying specifically "do", meaning "you
-- it has to be! -- go".

The vocative "pe'u do klama" would technically mean, i think, "i am
asking YOU for this bridi (klama) to be true". The command is
addressed to "do", but it doesn't say who should be the goer; it
requires another "do" to get the meaning of "ko klama".

In short:

ko klama = do .e'i klama = pe'u do do klama

This "e'i" may be "e'o" or "e'u", depending on the context, but the
point is that they are of UI, as opposed to KOhA (ko) and COI (pe'u).


mu'o mi'e tijlan