Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18;
Message-ID: <517EB27B.1050808@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:48:43 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Baby Words: "you're right" and orders.
References: <20130429163424.GP10220@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <71a0be7f-85af-4b53-8212-8e2de124cf9c@googlegroups.com> <CALm==BUnPBCgz_NZmdZLEnp_T+5tfvULN=x097sJ0pVYSavd5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALm==BUnPBCgz_NZmdZLEnp_T+5tfvULN=x097sJ0pVYSavd5w@mail.gmail.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; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .arpis. cu cusku di'e
> Reading the BPFK definition of {e'i} here
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals>, I
> feel like {.e'i do na broda} would translate to "You must not do
> {broda}", while {e'i ko na broda} would translate to "Don't {broda}".

I'm not sure where you get that difference from.

> If this understanding is right, then there's no problem expressing what
> gleki wants, and selpa'i is subtly wrong. If I'm wrong, could someone
> point me to an explanation of why?

It's hard to tell what the difference is between a command with {ko} and 
a command with {do}. One could go as far as to say that {ko} + {.e'o} 
results in a sort of redundancy.

In particular, is there a difference between (1) and (2), and if so, 
what is it?

(1) .i .e'o do mi sidju
     "Please help me."

(2) .i .e'o ko mi sidju
     "Please help me."

I think it is important to keep in mind that these irrealis attitudinals 
are really illocutionaries, and so it is often more useful to translate 
them as "I hereby request that you help me". The only difference I could 
imagine between (1) and (2) is that there might be a slight additional 
focus on the {ko} in (2), probably because -- when refactored -- the 
{ko'oi} attaches to the {do} as opposed to the whole utterance.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.