Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gusni.kantu@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.174;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:39:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJOpN0MmnFebc0mRNpvNGoukLLOp_PDWYW5Sm-qoxiDnSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

I would like to propose an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativit=
y.

I know an experimental cmavo {xa'e} of LAhE, but it does not satisfy my dem=
and.
When {xa'e} qualifies sumti with a logical connective, a problem occurs.

1) xa'e do .onai lo mi speni co'a morsi
2) xa'e do lu'u .onai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi

1) and 2) have different meanings.
{xa'e} of 1) qualifies {do .onai lo mi speni}. The speaker wants one
of them to die.
On the other hand, two {xa'e}s of 2) qualify {do} and {lo mi speni}
respectively. The speaker's imperativity is separated into two parts
with {.onai}, and each of them is therefore indefinite.

A problem occurs when I try to transform them.

The imperativity of 2) can be expressed in two sentences connected with ije=
k:
2-1) xa'e do co'a morsi .ijonai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi
while that of 1) cannot.

Why the imperativity of Lojban is so inflexible, while the
interrogativity of it is quite flexible? I want an imperative cmavo be
of UI6 like {xu} instead of LAhE.

I propose therefore an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity.
With {ko'oi}, the above mentioned sentences 1) and 2) can be expressed
respectively as follows:

3) do .onai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi
4) do ko'oi .onai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi

and both can be transformed to sentences connected with ijek:

3-1) do co'a morsi .ijonai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi
4-1) do ko'oi co'a morsi .ijonai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi


As a basis of this proposition, I was inspired by an opinion of xorxes
in the following thread:
https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/f3bc98e058baa73=
6
Jorge wrote, Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:45:21 EDT
> What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't
> have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is
> not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really
> belong in a sumti.
> Consider these:
>         au do lo plise mi dunda
>         <wish> You give me an apple.
>         a'o do lo plise mi dunda
>         <hope> You give me an apple.
>         e'o do lo plise mi dunda
>         <request> You give me an apple.
>         e'u do lo plise mi dunda
>         <suggestion> You give me an apple.
>         e'a do lo plise mi dunda
>         <permission> You give me an apple.
>         ei do lo plise mi dunda
>         <obligation> You give me an apple.
> They have different forms in normal English: "I wish you would give
> me an apple", "I hope you give me an apple", "Please, give me an apple",
> "How about giving me an apple?", "You may give me an apple", "You must
> give me an apple".
> Why should "<command> You give me an apple" be special? Just because
> there is a special tense in English and other languages for that?
> Of course, {ko} may be useful because it's nice and short, but there
> wouldn't really be any loss in expressive power without it.

I consent to this opinion. In fact, in my translation work "lo nenri
be spati denmi", I finally decided to use {e'o} instead of any
"imperative" word:
   do .onai .e'o lo mi speni co'a morsi
http://guskant.github.com/yabu/yabu5.html

However, I think one sometimes cannot easily define one's attitudinal
of imperativity, {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} or {ei}. I would
like to express imperativity more easily without wavering between the
attitudinals. For this purpose, the experimental cmavo {ko'oi} is
defined as a broader term than {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} and
{ei}.

Some examples of usage:

ex.1) http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Confessions_(Rousseau)/Livre_VI
Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse =E0 qui l'on
disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui r=E9pondit: Qu'ils
mangent de la brioche.
   ra ko'oi citka lo brioco
It may be expressed rather with a narrower term:
   ra .e'u citka lo brioco

ex.2) Puissent vos projets r=E9ussir !
   lo ko'oi se platu be do ku te snada
With a narrower term:
   lo .a'o se platu be do ku te snada
(or possibly {e'o})

ex.3) Que je sois pendu si je mens.
   mi ko'oi dandu janai jifsku
With a narrower term:
   mi .au dandu janai jifsku
(or possibly {e'u}, {ei})


How do you think about {ko'oi}? Any comments will be appreciated.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.