From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 09 15:05:44 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlVIO-0001sh-JQ for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:44 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlVIL-0001sD-0I for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:44 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so5571010ewy.0 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:34 -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=u/Fc1PDvsxkkgPwm4dbZZUhThYv5ALZR/jUq01wCVuE=; b=JPiI0UqLkPN00W4vlocCkvlEnN2VqguSV+/UJmnslq54iiHdxAtL0eUpEX9OmqW2Om 8SIgFDRmAUTm4yvdOkACj4dSkZEWoGJ8rH2V7BpT4veNX4TV8hJMzimZ126ERytnNexB xUBYwP8wuYAyQBWGcqLXQly3GHkKOoLqW3zlY= 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=yBZ7NYeySM1Swx0BEGDoBB+XBACowGpfEiQB8eg0rrXRiTyKGJgqHs8vMMyCkLeryF QZdL4f3sUJ0KkXxrqK8sJzxBXXKam9IN0YaQ/6ZyxNP5ub2CKQFOzKKS189tFRAhI0G5 keh7C9Gd8dgZZm4MW0dO1YaOU2afZiHCTSueM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.130.19 with SMTP id h19mr855614ebn.54.1252533934140; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:34 -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> <9ada8ecd0909091415i58a0b794h38d98132c6861d88@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:05:34 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909091505r11bea9e9qa3305eb7b1edaf34@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: let us From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502c60d36adab04732c4882 X-archive-position: 2279 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 --00504502c60d36adab04732c4882 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My impression was that a regular imperative is always translated using *ko* but if we want to make it more polite we add an indicator such as *e'o* . This makes sense since the basic meaning is the same: "I want you to do something" but there is an additional flavor that may vary: "you are obligated to this", "you aren't obligated to this, but I think it's a good idea", "you aren't obligated to this but I would be grateful if you do" etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > 2009/9/9 Squark Rabinovich : > > 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? > > I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about the translation of > "let's" by itself, but the translation of the expression that you get > when you put another verb after "let's", e.g. "let's eat", "let's go", > "let's talk", etcetera. "Let's", alone, obviously doesn't make an > imperative. > > Some of these expressions sound more order-like than others, though. > For example, "Let's go" said by a parent to his/her child sounds much > more order-like and imperative-like than "Let's go get something to > eat" said by someone to his/her friend, which sounds more like a > proposition. But then again, "Pass me the salt, please" *is* an > imperative form and yet sounds much less order-like than both of those > sentences, because it actually isn't an order but a polite request. > Therefore, I don't think we should base our decision on whether "Let's > " is an imperative form or not solely on the way it sounds. > Whether it *should* be treated as an imperative in Lojban is > definitely a thing to discuss. As I already said, I find the idea of > it being treated as an imperative completely natural, but that doesn't > mean anything - that's how I'm used to thinking about it because > that's how it's treated in my native language. I've just thrown my two > cents here and noticed that it might not be a bad idea to treat it as > an imperative form. There are people way more proficient in Lojban > than me who should discuss that. > > But, if I may add just something else to this, it seems to me that > "Let's " should be translated differently into Lojban, depending > on whether it's actually an order or a request. Lojban is supposed to > be a logical language and, as I've already demonstrated, in our > everyday natural-languages communications we use imperative forms > loosely, regardless of whether we want to actually say an order, or a > plea, or a request, or a proposition, or something completely else. I > think that, in the cases where "Let's " is meant as an order, it > should, appropriately, be translated using imperative. In the cases > where "Let's " is meant as something else, like a request or a > proposition, it should, equally appropriately, be translated as > whatever it's meant to be - request, proposition, plea or whatever. > And I think this should apply not only to the "Let's " forms, > but to any "standard" imperative sentences. I.e., "Step out of the > vehicle!" shouted by the police should be translated into Lojban as > imperative, whereas "Pass me the salt, please" should be translated as > a polite request. > > It's too easy to see an imperative form and decide to translate it > using imperative, but we should know what we actually want to say by > that "imperative" when we translate it into Lojban. > > > > --00504502c60d36adab04732c4882 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My impression was that a regular imperative is always tran= slated using ko=A0but if we want to make it more polite we add an in= dicator such as e'o=A0. This makes sense since the basic meaning= is the same: "I want you to do something" but there is an additi= onal flavor that may vary: "you are obligated to this", "you= aren't obligated to this, but I think it's a good idea", &quo= t;you aren't obligated to this but I would be grateful if you do" = etc.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Ivo Doko <= span dir=3D"ltr"><ivo.doko@gmail.c= om> wrote:
2009/9/9 Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>:
> It's my personal point of view, but I don&= #39;t think lojban=A0should try to be
> "culturally neutral" from the point of view of grammar, in t= he sense of not
> having grammar more similar to one existing language or another. The g= rammar
> of lojban=A0should have nothing to do with the grammar of natural lang= uages.
> Instead, it should strive to be logical, efficient and precise in the<= br> > expression of meaning. If if turns out similar to one or another natur= al
> language in certain aspects, that's merely an unimportant coincide= nce.
> "let's" is not expressed as a pronoun in any of the 3 la= nguages I speak.
> Neither is regular imperative. However, in lojban=A0imperative is expr= essed by
> a sumti cmavo=A0which is logical, simple and allows for easy expressio= n of
> very generic imperative sentences. If so, why shouldn't "let&= #39;s" be the same?

I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about the translatio= n of
"let's" by itself, but the translation of the expression that= you get
when you put another verb after "let's", e.g. "let's= eat", "let's go",
"let's talk", etcetera. "Let's", alone, obvious= ly doesn't make an
imperative.

Some of these expressions sound more order-like than others, though.
For example, "Let's go" said by a parent to his/her child sou= nds much
more order-like and imperative-like than "Let's go get something t= o
eat" said by someone to his/her friend, which sounds more like a
proposition. But then again, "Pass me the salt, please" *is* an imperative form and yet sounds much less order-like than both of those
sentences, because it actually isn't an order but a polite request.
Therefore, I don't think we should base our decision on whether "L= et's
<VERB>" is an imperative form or not solely on the way it sounds= .
Whether it *should* be treated as an imperative in Lojban is
definitely a thing to discuss. As I already said, I find the idea of
it being treated as an imperative completely natural, but that doesn't<= br> mean anything - that's how I'm used to thinking about it because that's how it's treated in my native language. I've just thrown= my two
cents here and noticed that it might not be a bad idea to treat it as
an imperative form. There are people way more proficient in Lojban
than me who should discuss that.

But, if I may add just something else to this, it seems to me that
"Let's <VERB>" should be translated differently into Lo= jban, depending
on whether it's actually an order or a request. Lojban is supposed to be a logical language and, as I've already demonstrated, in our
everyday natural-languages communications we use imperative forms
loosely, regardless of whether we want to actually say an order, or a
plea, or a request, or a proposition, or something completely else. I
think that, in the cases where "Let's <VERB>" is meant = as an order, it
should, appropriately, be translated using imperative. In the cases
where "Let's <VERB>" is meant as something else, like a= request or a
proposition, it should, equally appropriately, be translated as
whatever it's meant to be - request, proposition, plea or whatever.
And I think this should apply not only to the "Let's <VERB>&= quot; forms,
but to any "standard" imperative sentences. I.e., "Step out = of the
vehicle!" shouted by the police should be translated into Lojban as imperative, whereas "Pass me the salt, please" should be translat= ed as
a polite request.

It's too easy to see an imperative form and decide to translate it
using imperative, but we should know what we actually want to say by
that "imperative" when we translate it into Lojban.




--00504502c60d36adab04732c4882--