From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 09 14:37:28 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlUr1-0007tq-M2 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:27 -0700 Received: from mail-yx0-f202.google.com ([209.85.210.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlUqy-0007ta-PT for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:27 -0700 Received: by yxe40 with SMTP id 40so612709yxe.28 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:18 -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=51Eb278HCdloFj6erXTtOFYLCEQu3rP2NFEtysMs/2k=; b=mEZ9IfUUEPBrdMYL854NEE6Km3+oeF3+wWjMh3DWcKLplW6dURBM0wCkiAbtoRncgk SoSlESz2s9rulvx2TMhkBZL2walJtHvjCSaPRWezM3lGL16yKVh2xcPWPlbDT1uJ72TB lmm3+IPwEpbOX86a6TyL/XrOhTqOwCYKvOsxI= 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=pL9iFPnVhV6XEWCQ92sjWVpDTpX46JSMU9cSX7rf0W2AtS3k/SxGvQNWDAxwCIGSD7 f95iLpgOou3eJYXMrBmGV6OgshdpyTqTkBULgaW2nWNPGdorjmqq0Xi8cjtsfOQ530da HsDFXpMYNM01dcvae1LtDQeHmBXCmT0ozd9A8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.87.28 with SMTP id k28mr1326237ybb.275.1252532238411; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909091415i58a0b794h38d98132c6861d88@mail.gmail.com> References: <96f789a60909071000m7efdb840kcb37646a3cd5c7c5@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909081255m2215bd02oae0eb2cb8949463e@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160909081354w350f49d7p195fd2e53959844b@mail.gmail.com> <4de8c3930909081548i78f90850w68cfcb69aecbf4e7@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909091353g5c75c195tae9d36a4212edd99@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909091415i58a0b794h38d98132c6861d88@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:37:18 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300909091437q4332a9fesa704a560f9f08657@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: let us From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5f15c23e8ce04732be3ad X-archive-position: 2277 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --000e0cd5f15c23e8ce04732be3ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Now that I think about it, how can one command ones self to do something? One can express intention, determination to do a thing, or desire (all of which are expressible through attitudinals), but what would it mean to express the imperative {ko} to ones self? Furthermore, {do} means "the listener" not necessarily "you over there". So could {ko klama} mean "let's go" if context makes sense that I'm talking about "us"? For instance: {mi'o nitcu lo ka zvati vu .i ko klama}. Given this context, couldn't {ko klama} mean what we typically mean when we say "let's go"? On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> > --000e0cd5f15c23e8ce04732be3ad Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now that I think about it, how can one command ones self to do something?= =A0 One can express intention, determination to do a thing, or desire (all = of which are expressible through attitudinals), but what would it mean to e= xpress the imperative {ko} to ones self?

Furthermore, {do} means "the listener" not necessarily "= you over there".=A0 So could {ko klama} mean "let's go" = if context makes sense that I'm talking about "us"?=A0 For in= stance: {mi'o nitcu lo ka zvati vu .i ko klama}.=A0 Given this context,= couldn't {ko klama} mean what we typically mean when we say "let&= #39;s go"?

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Squark Rabin= ovich <top.squ= ark@gmail.com> wrote:
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.com> wrote:
2009/9/9 Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>:
> The fact it is so in certain natural languages doesn't mean w= e 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.





--000e0cd5f15c23e8ce04732be3ad--