From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jan 18 11:28:56 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Cqz27-0005JV-VB
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:28:55 -0800
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:28:55 -0800
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Everyone should speak lojban?
Message-ID: <20050118192855.GM11619@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <41E86B09.7010004@pacbell.net> <3E9364E6-66E3-11D9-B104-000D9329C984@online.fr> <41EAEF88.5090407@pacbell.net> <12d58c16050118070936032e43@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <12d58c16050118070936032e43@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 1034
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
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: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:09:09AM -0500, Adam COOPER wrote:
> Also, as far as I know, {nu} & the other abstractors like {du'u} &
> {si'o} always take a bridi.

Correct.

> > No, I did want a strong suggestion, although it seems like there
> > isn't a poetic way to phrase it.  

I thought {.e'u sai do tavla fo la lojban} was just fine, and poetic
enough.

> > 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.

Softens it a bit, though.

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

Not only do you not need it, this doesn't work at all.  Some people
suggested {doi ro do ko tavla}, which binds "who I'm talking to" to
"all of you", and then uses that as a command.  You could also do
{doi ro prenu ko tavla} or {xamgu fa lo nu ro prenu cu tavla} or
several other variants.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/