Received: from mail-pa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.220.61]:34830)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBCRZPH6MCMIML6EZQUCRUBBXA3K6W@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1TZQ1F-0003tK-Ap; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:48:13 -0800
Received: by mail-pa0-f61.google.com with SMTP id fa11sf1916780pad.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:47:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=/wp6kL71a/iXtq0F4V8LSfPtUbMsopYgfJEtdezDMp4=;
        b=CpYGX8kPiFfvvr2Dz6gzS52B9bqKTneMDULnViX3hzj+zUlGWd40y0wBm8YoqRsWb+
         vH9inqhlfHzmphpwn7xStplxQkAoolLKS6Uc6DZ189wD5FJrfg31aBTXOWH0BzK9PQDL
         6k4erD3NSGN1UhCrFRgqTK4kaP9PPU6hRLbVYl2pk4av/eMUqR4tZqXMtEK9aPKB3TPW
         0OJTmhTREb+S5Yn4OK+J5a0VArEFQW6LfnHZhmaAxWMz2t9Jzt39w8fLUcNhNJXcbY8v
         HyH8c9kY3S9e1d5DWR8FCe9r+jh6GMxz3S3zG6KEKCIpRRdzkTyZF+pUbW8bIqoDymn5
         GX5w==
Received: by 10.49.116.193 with SMTP id jy1mr1075713qeb.2.1353088070750;
        Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.51.72 with SMTP id i8ls1108604qeo.9.gmail; Fri, 16 Nov 2012
 09:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.72.40 with SMTP id a8mr1144112qev.13.1353088069159;
        Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:47:48 -0800 (PST)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <03532cda-acab-4671-b84d-ed741c6bfc28@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO1AUJOpN0MmnFebc0mRNpvNGoukLLOp_PDWYW5Sm-qoxiDnSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO1AUJOpN0MmnFebc0mRNpvNGoukLLOp_PDWYW5Sm-qoxiDnSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_494_8846872.1353088068441"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_494_8846872.1353088068441
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There was a thread on {xa'e} sev. months ago (actually I started it) with=
=20
someone replying that {.e'i} is the solution.

On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:39:25 PM UTC+4, guskant wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as=20
> imperativity.=20
>
> I know an experimental cmavo {xa'e} of LAhE, but it does not satisfy my=
=20
> demand.=20
> When {xa'e} qualifies sumti with a logical connective, a problem occurs.=
=20
>
> 1) xa'e do .onai lo mi speni co'a morsi=20
> 2) xa'e do lu'u .onai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi=20
>
> 1) and 2) have different meanings.=20
> {xa'e} of 1) qualifies {do .onai lo mi speni}. The speaker wants one=20
> of them to die.=20
> On the other hand, two {xa'e}s of 2) qualify {do} and {lo mi speni}=20
> respectively. The speaker's imperativity is separated into two parts=20
> with {.onai}, and each of them is therefore indefinite.=20
>
> A problem occurs when I try to transform them.=20
>
> The imperativity of 2) can be expressed in two sentences connected with=
=20
> ijek:=20
> 2-1) xa'e do co'a morsi .ijonai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi=20
> while that of 1) cannot.=20
>
> Why the imperativity of Lojban is so inflexible, while the=20
> interrogativity of it is quite flexible? I want an imperative cmavo be=20
> of UI6 like {xu} instead of LAhE.=20
>
> I propose therefore an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity.=
=20
> With {ko'oi}, the above mentioned sentences 1) and 2) can be expressed=20
> respectively as follows:=20
>
> 3) do .onai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi=20
> 4) do ko'oi .onai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi=20
>
> and both can be transformed to sentences connected with ijek:=20
>
> 3-1) do co'a morsi .ijonai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi=20
> 4-1) do ko'oi co'a morsi .ijonai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi=20
>
>
> As a basis of this proposition, I was inspired by an opinion of xorxes=20
> in the following thread:=20
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/f3bc98e058baa=
736=20
> Jorge wrote, Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:45:21 EDT=20
> > What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't=20
> > have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is=20
> > not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really=20
> > belong in a sumti.=20
> > Consider these:=20
> >         au do lo plise mi dunda=20
> >         <wish> You give me an apple.=20
> >         a'o do lo plise mi dunda=20
> >         <hope> You give me an apple.=20
> >         e'o do lo plise mi dunda=20
> >         <request> You give me an apple.=20
> >         e'u do lo plise mi dunda=20
> >         <suggestion> You give me an apple.=20
> >         e'a do lo plise mi dunda=20
> >         <permission> You give me an apple.=20
> >         ei do lo plise mi dunda=20
> >         <obligation> You give me an apple.=20
> > They have different forms in normal English: "I wish you would give=20
> > me an apple", "I hope you give me an apple", "Please, give me an apple"=
,=20
> > "How about giving me an apple?", "You may give me an apple", "You must=
=20
> > give me an apple".=20
> > Why should "<command> You give me an apple" be special? Just because=20
> > there is a special tense in English and other languages for that?=20
> > Of course, {ko} may be useful because it's nice and short, but there=20
> > wouldn't really be any loss in expressive power without it.=20
>
> I consent to this opinion. In fact, in my translation work "lo nenri=20
> be spati denmi", I finally decided to use {e'o} instead of any=20
> "imperative" word:=20
>    do .onai .e'o lo mi speni co'a morsi=20
> http://guskant.github.com/yabu/yabu5.html=20
>
> However, I think one sometimes cannot easily define one's attitudinal=20
> of imperativity, {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} or {ei}. I would=20
> like to express imperativity more easily without wavering between the=20
> attitudinals. For this purpose, the experimental cmavo {ko'oi} is=20
> defined as a broader term than {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} and=20
> {ei}.=20
>
> Some examples of usage:=20
>
> ex.1) http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Confessions_(Rousseau)/Livre_VI=
=20
> Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse =E0 qui l'on=20
> disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui r=E9pondit: Qu'ils=
=20
> mangent de la brioche.=20
>    ra ko'oi citka lo brioco=20
> It may be expressed rather with a narrower term:=20
>    ra .e'u citka lo brioco=20
>
> ex.2) Puissent vos projets r=E9ussir !=20
>    lo ko'oi se platu be do ku te snada=20
> With a narrower term:=20
>    lo .a'o se platu be do ku te snada=20
> (or possibly {e'o})=20
>
> ex.3) Que je sois pendu si je mens.=20
>    mi ko'oi dandu janai jifsku=20
> With a narrower term:=20
>    mi .au dandu janai jifsku=20
> (or possibly {e'u}, {ei})=20
>
>
> How do you think about {ko'oi}? Any comments will be appreciated.=20
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lo=
jban/-/TkPb-et4T5sJ.
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.


------=_Part_494_8846872.1353088068441
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There was a thread on {xa'e} sev. months ago (actually I started it) with s=
omeone replying that {.e'i} is the solution.<br><br>On Friday, November 16,=
 2012 9:39:25 PM UTC+4, guskant wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
: 1ex;">I would like to propose an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imp=
erativity.
<br>
<br>I know an experimental cmavo {xa'e} of LAhE, but it does not satisfy my=
 demand.
<br>When {xa'e} qualifies sumti with a logical connective, a problem occurs=
.
<br>
<br>1) xa'e do .onai lo mi speni co'a morsi
<br>2) xa'e do lu'u .onai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi
<br>
<br>1) and 2) have different meanings.
<br>{xa'e} of 1) qualifies {do .onai lo mi speni}. The speaker wants one
<br>of them to die.
<br>On the other hand, two {xa'e}s of 2) qualify {do} and {lo mi speni}
<br>respectively. The speaker's imperativity is separated into two parts
<br>with {.onai}, and each of them is therefore indefinite.
<br>
<br>A problem occurs when I try to transform them.
<br>
<br>The imperativity of 2) can be expressed in two sentences connected with=
 ijek:
<br>2-1) xa'e do co'a morsi .ijonai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi
<br>while that of 1) cannot.
<br>
<br>Why the imperativity of Lojban is so inflexible, while the
<br>interrogativity of it is quite flexible? I want an imperative cmavo be
<br>of UI6 like {xu} instead of LAhE.
<br>
<br>I propose therefore an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativit=
y.
<br>With {ko'oi}, the above mentioned sentences 1) and 2) can be expressed
<br>respectively as follows:
<br>
<br>3) do .onai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi
<br>4) do ko'oi .onai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi
<br>
<br>and both can be transformed to sentences connected with ijek:
<br>
<br>3-1) do co'a morsi .ijonai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi
<br>4-1) do ko'oi co'a morsi .ijonai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi
<br>
<br>
<br>As a basis of this proposition, I was inspired by an opinion of xorxes
<br>in the following thread:
<br><a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/=
f3bc98e058baa736" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>group/lo=
jban/browse_thread/<wbr>thread/f3bc98e058baa736</a>
<br>Jorge wrote, Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:45:21 EDT
<br>&gt; What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don=
't
<br>&gt; have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} =
is
<br>&gt; not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not real=
ly
<br>&gt; belong in a sumti.
<br>&gt; Consider these:
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; au do lo plise mi dunda
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;wish&gt; You give me an apple.
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a'o do lo plise mi dunda
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;hope&gt; You give me an apple.
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; e'o do lo plise mi dunda
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;request&gt; You give me an apple.
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; e'u do lo plise mi dunda
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;suggestion&gt; You give me an appl=
e.
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; e'a do lo plise mi dunda
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;permission&gt; You give me an appl=
e.
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ei do lo plise mi dunda
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;obligation&gt; You give me an appl=
e.
<br>&gt; They have different forms in normal English: "I wish you would giv=
e
<br>&gt; me an apple", "I hope you give me an apple", "Please, give me an a=
pple",
<br>&gt; "How about giving me an apple?", "You may give me an apple", "You =
must
<br>&gt; give me an apple".
<br>&gt; Why should "&lt;command&gt; You give me an apple" be special? Just=
 because
<br>&gt; there is a special tense in English and other languages for that?
<br>&gt; Of course, {ko} may be useful because it's nice and short, but the=
re
<br>&gt; wouldn't really be any loss in expressive power without it.
<br>
<br>I consent to this opinion. In fact, in my translation work "lo nenri
<br>be spati denmi", I finally decided to use {e'o} instead of any
<br>"imperative" word:
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;do .onai .e'o lo mi speni co'a morsi
<br><a href=3D"http://guskant.github.com/yabu/yabu5.html" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://guskant.github.com/<wbr>yabu/yabu5.html</a>
<br>
<br>However, I think one sometimes cannot easily define one's attitudinal
<br>of imperativity, {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} or {ei}. I would
<br>like to express imperativity more easily without wavering between the
<br>attitudinals. For this purpose, the experimental cmavo {ko'oi} is
<br>defined as a broader term than {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} and
<br>{ei}.
<br>
<br>Some examples of usage:
<br>
<br>ex.1) <a href=3D"http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Confessions_(Roussea=
u)/Livre_VI" target=3D"_blank">http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/<wbr>Les_Confe=
ssions_(Rousseau)/<wbr>Livre_VI</a>
<br>Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse =E0 qui l'on
<br>disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui r=E9pondit: Qu'ils
<br>mangent de la brioche.
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;ra ko'oi citka lo brioco
<br>It may be expressed rather with a narrower term:
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;ra .e'u citka lo brioco
<br>
<br>ex.2) Puissent vos projets r=E9ussir !
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;lo ko'oi se platu be do ku te snada
<br>With a narrower term:
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;lo .a'o se platu be do ku te snada
<br>(or possibly {e'o})
<br>
<br>ex.3) Que je sois pendu si je mens.
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;mi ko'oi dandu janai jifsku
<br>With a narrower term:
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;mi .au dandu janai jifsku
<br>(or possibly {e'u}, {ei})
<br>
<br>
<br>How do you think about {ko'oi}? Any comments will be appreciated.
<br></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/TkPb-et4T5sJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Tk=
Pb-et4T5sJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_494_8846872.1353088068441--