From adamgarrigus@gmail.com Tue Jan 18 07:09:41 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.205])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CquzF-0000QT-NB
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:09:41 -0800
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so869176wri
        for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:09:10 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=eHts/21Jl3DSGXu5w1e2vr1XzcG7Az03ZpYWys+xLLXaQGXXgxUTCNghObWePtTYIi5QC5PCSEVBSfrosJbPSK8K5B/Fx+6Hifqgh9rKiejpvpMQM3FGzYCssK0BjtwimZL7/oZsykpQLe409y1EjmyLXWALoihNV7ro0iApUdo=
Received: by 10.54.1.69 with SMTP id 69mr49363wra;
        Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.54.35.24 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <12d58c16050118070936032e43@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:09:09 -0500
From: Adam COOPER <adamgarrigus@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Everyone should speak lojban?
In-Reply-To: <41EAEF88.5090407@pacbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
References: <41E86B09.7010004@pacbell.net>
	 <3E9364E6-66E3-11D9-B104-000D9329C984@online.fr>
	 <41EAEF88.5090407@pacbell.net>
X-archive-position: 1030
X-Approved-By: adamgarrigus@gmail.com
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: adamgarrigus@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:49:44 -0800, Tasci <pubsynx7hye@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Um... "Suggestion.  I suggest the idea that all of you are speaking
> lojban," is my best guess.  In terms of grouping, is it like (.e'u cai
> ((mi) stidi (lo nu (ro do tavla fo la lojban))))?  That is, cai refers
> to the statement around stidi, and nu somehow magically uses a bridi as
> its second argument instead of a sumti?  If so, I might use 'ko' instead
> of 'do' to ensure that they understand I am suggesting a command,
> instead of suggesting an observation. 

.e'u cai : attitudinal : [the bridi is a strong suggestion]
mi : x1 of stidi : I
stidi : suggest
lo ... lojban. : x2 of stidi  :
  lo nu : the event of
  ro : all of
  do : you
  tavla fo la lojban. : speak Lojban
Hence -- "I suggest [strongly] that all of you speak Lojban." Also, as
far as I know, {nu} & the other abstractors like {du'u} & {si'o}
always take a bridi. Counterexample?

> No, I did want a strong suggestion, although it seems like there isn't a
> poetic way to phrase it.  On the other hand I don't want to say "I kinda
> sorta think maybe if it's not too much trouble we could all speak lojban
> please?" so in that sense it's something of a command. 

Maybe you could get away with {.e'u cai ro ko tavla fo la lojban.} in
which the attitudinal softens the bridi from a command to a
suggestion.

Some folks suggested {... ro do ko ...} I don't get why one would need
{do} along with {ko}.

fe'o mi'e .adam.