From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Sep 06 06:48:57 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkI6z-0006Jn-0j for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:48:57 -0700 Received: from mail-iw0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkI6t-0006Hp-Cv for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:48:56 -0700 Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so621722iwn.25 for ; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:48:44 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y5g631fIH7fAhDb2oLbFWpLosCyNI2S61w2Knr1Z1pU=; b=by1IBsIDzteOeRqTH1L5KPBgUnkVbhhyjcPhCHg+K3Ca+5hEfUVuiHLUaypq/PBZKv gtOYuHntj0JQGpDFE7uqdkXlrOEgKLxHw2bTR2pFjg/9Hwmp4KnKqdHLrc1ATqqdvAvC lhDh7AGbkVXR6X9wMbPOJ/Wr/W5eEGsKS7nd8= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=QSmsJ4GgCHilYPtuyTaFcPXPtpDKQ0rusyJ/H1FSSbNET+Mq7DMCbGBTk75QUAK5AK 7UMq7T+GkGQjN+0jrVx01vEOIP1ehn0GE7L1gSWOMHanQPsCrBrRM5kz43YAzDDniUBh 9SM4mOGhQM++TWbtpeajmJkGtdao3kD5++yDs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.24.208 with SMTP id w16mr10867978ibb.38.1252244924851; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:48:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909051310k4edf0dc6u68cc6148f17bda17@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051155s627ec6b9v9a1282326ef54860@mail.gmail.com> <200909051554.25972.phma@phma.optus.nu> <9ada8ecd0909051310k4edf0dc6u68cc6148f17bda17@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:48:44 -0400 Message-ID: <425e4ac20909060648h6175cd14ub005409bdfe69f59@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: let us From: Stela Selckiku To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 2209 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: selckiku@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > > I don't feel comfortable with using an attitudinal alone for this. For > instance, what is the meaning of .e'o do pilno le skami or .au do pilno le > skami ? It sounds to me like the claim that "you use the computer" > (factually) plus an added implication of some (possibly unspecified) request > or desire. No, in Lojban it is possible to do many things with a proposition other than assert it to be true. A bridi simply describes a relationship and the participants in that relationship. There are then various explicit claims that you can make as a speaker relative to each bridi's proposition, such as that it is true (je'u), or that it is a hypothetical supposition (da'i), or even that it's a joke (zo'o). An unmarked statement could be any of these, and indeed in conversational Lojban you will encounter a variety of unmarked statements, some of which are factual assertions, some of which are hypotheticals, and some of which are jokes. The essential meaning of ".e'o" is that the speaker's relationship to the proposition is that they request for it to please be made true, and the essential meaning of ".au" is that the speaker's relationship to the proposition is that they desire for it to be true. Since you are requesting or desiring that the bridi be true, it's naturally implied that it probably isn't true yet, because why ask for or want something you already have? (It is possible, in my experience, to desire something which is already actual, but it is a rare and complex emotion.) I would say that it's not so much grammatically implied, as semantically implied. If neither "je'u" (this is true) or "da'i" (this is hypothetical) is explicitly stated, then the bridi is up in the air, open to pressure from context. Because of their meaning, words like ".e'o" and ".au" (which have been called "irrealis" attitudiinals) imply that the bridi they mark is likely to be hypothetical. > If I am mistaken, what do we need ko for? Is the only the save > the one slaka of the attitudinal? Like all sumti, "ko" is never strictly necessary, if it can be properly implied. It's helpful in saying a variety of things very precisely, though. For instance, in imperative statements the distinction between "do" and "ko" is used to show a distinction between telling someone to be in a role passively or actively, such as "ko do kurji" take care of yourself, vs "do ko kurji" be taken care of by yourself. There is an imperative implication to "ko" that makes additional imperative attitudinals redundant, but "ko" still is often combined with requesting or desiring (or commanding or angry!) attitudinals. > The doi option is logical, however it creates a strange sort of > self-reference. It means that from now on, do refers to mi'o = > mi + do ! I don't think it creates a self-reference. It copies the value, in programmer speak, not the reference. It's possible to address just about anything in Lojban. For that matter, it's possible to speak on behalf of just about anything. You can speak on behalf of one entity, address a larger entity including who you're speaking for, then begin speaking on behalf of a different entity while still addressing the entity that included your earlier self. (Sometimes that sort of thing even makes sense! Poetry and politics come to mind.) Another way to think about it is that "mi" and "do" are just another pair of assignable prosumti, just ones with an ordinary conventional assignment when not given explicit meaning, and also with some special powers and qualities. For instance in this case "do" was assigned in order to make use of the specific imperative mechanism we have with do/ko. It can be even more useful to reassign "mi", which allows you to use the whole attitudinal palette to paint anyone's voice: mi'e gerku Speaking for a dog. .i .ui solri .i .o'u bongu Yay the sun! A relaxing bone. .i .o'o nai le'o mrilu gunka GRR a mail worker! > Is there a way to "reset" do so it refers to the "default" listener > once again? Perhaps if I say just doi ? There's "da'o", but that's a drastic slate-cleaner: It sends everything back to its ordinary blankness, all of the prosumti and letterals and everything. So probably too strong a medicine for what you're asking. (There was once a proposed way to make it just wipe one prosumti, anyone remember that?) Just saying "doi" or "doi do" doesn't really do anything. It would probably be understood well enough, but then so would saying nothing. People say "doi ro do" all the time, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean anything either. :) I would say what you should do is readdress yourself to whoever you would like to address next. If you're talking to someone in particular, it might be polite to just address yourself again to their name, "doi .djan." It's also quite ordinary in Lojban to say something ilke "doi prenu", to some people, or "doi jbopre", to some Lojbanists, to address yourself to the people around. I think a stylish thing to say would be "doi jundi", to those who are paying attention, which I would take to mean to whoever's listening. If speaking out loud, I think "doi tirna", to those who hear a sound, is a nice one. mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o