From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 09 14:15:30 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlUVm-0006YM-3X for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:30 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlUVd-0006XQ-Vi for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:28 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so5524199ewy.0 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:15 -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=hkLwbbk4cIjfG41ff30Yl0sT15pemD867hahXNhfSX0=; b=DBRO+k74GNknNZjFhB30GGiZiP1KLZrd4oWCk3axVB4HRvSBLgxE+ESBcp3pIVlN+a Pb3jecl1LChPubuxSKUPBUfCiWkd/SNHEG2rMqyWgCc1ik3CeFDygnxINKmCEt9rGIs4 4kYdVvNvpizLcVg+S0QkM5bg/pmUkn4JhFHxM= 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=gv6KZOQoI+/7yaEB2JX/Jz5R/KU3kK3RLe4ub6YK+/59fTbjPKusFDPV1HYf8kZzHJ hbtjov/oQgMtzEnBg1+TlonIZHYOlR0pKiqXryKeEmidfZ2bg5mvycivVZJw7Cqx5T2J rtUIexjWcp400Ntl1ac2BFnOZiix3msBuansM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.156.15 with SMTP id d15mr5178471ebe.27.1252530909364; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <96f789a60909071000m7efdb840kcb37646a3cd5c7c5@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909081255m2215bd02oae0eb2cb8949463e@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160909081354w350f49d7p195fd2e53959844b@mail.gmail.com> <4de8c3930909081548i78f90850w68cfcb69aecbf4e7@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909091353g5c75c195tae9d36a4212edd99@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:15:09 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909091415i58a0b794h38d98132c6861d88@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: let us From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00148531acb7ec4b0904732b932c X-archive-position: 2275 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: top.squark@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --00148531acb7ec4b0904732b932c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It's my personal point of view, but I don't think *lojban* should try to be "culturally neutral" from the point of view of grammar, in the sense of not having grammar more similar to one existing language or another. The grammar of *lojban* should have nothing to do with the grammar of natural languages. Instead, it should strive to be logical, efficient and precise in the expression of meaning. If if turns out similar to one or another natural language in certain aspects, that's merely an unimportant coincidence. "let's" is not expressed as a pronoun in any of the 3 languages I speak. Neither is regular imperative. However, in *lojban* imperative is expressed by a *sumti cmavo* which is logical, simple and allows for easy expression of very generic imperative sentences. If so, why shouldn't "let's" be the same? On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > 2009/9/9 Squark Rabinovich : > > The fact it is so in certain natural languages doesn't mean we should do > it > > this way in lojban ! > > Well how *should* we do it? Lojban is supposed to be culturally > neutral, but it seems that if we decide on saying "let's " > either as a first-person plural imperative of the or as > something else it's going to end up being culturally biased. To me the > concept that "let's " is an imperative form seems completely > natural, but it may be only because that's how it is in my native > language. > > > > --00148531acb7ec4b0904732b932c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's my personal point of view, but I don't think = lojban=A0should try to be "culturally neutral" from the po= int of view of grammar, in the sense of not having grammar more similar to = one existing language or another. The grammar of lojban=A0should hav= e nothing to do with the grammar of natural languages. Instead, it should s= trive to be logical, efficient and precise in the expression of meaning. If= if turns out similar to one or another natural language in certain aspects= , that's merely an unimportant coincidence. "let's" is no= t expressed as a pronoun in any of the 3 languages I speak. Neither is regu= lar imperative. However, in lojban=A0imperative is expressed by a sumti cmavo=A0which is logical, simple and allows for easy expression = of very generic imperative sentences. If so, why shouldn't "let= 9;s" be the same?

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Ivo Doko <= span dir=3D"ltr"><ivo.doko@gmail.c= om> wrote:
2009/9/9 Squark Rabinovich <top.= squark@gmail.com>:
> The fact it is so in certain natural languages doesn= 't mean we should do it
> this way in lojban !

Well how *should* we do it? Lojban is supposed to be culturally
neutral, but it seems that if we decide on saying "let's <VERB&= gt;"
either as a first-person plural imperative of the <VERB> or as
something else it's going to end up being culturally biased. To me the<= br> concept that "let's <VERB>" is an imperative form seems= completely
natural, but it may be only because that's how it is in my native
language.




--00148531acb7ec4b0904732b932c--