Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Message-ID: <51811B75.4030106@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 09:41:09 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Robin does the xorban (was Re: [lojban] Baby Words: "you're
 right" and orders.)
References: <20130429163424.GP10220@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <517EA2D8.4000206@gmx.de> <20130430195657.GM10220@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <17c5855e-538c-41bd-b1d9-ce5fc57fe533@googlegroups.com> <20130501105413.GP10220@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130501105413.GP10220@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
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: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 12:43:14AM
    -0700, la gleki wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:56:57 PM UTC+4,
    Robin Powell wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:42:00PM +0200, selpa'i
    wrote: >>>> la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e >>>>> 1. How would you mark a {ko}
    that's an order? I use {e'o} for >>>>> requests. For "You must do this!"
   I've been using {ga'i}, but >>>>> it's a tad unsatisfying. >>>> >>>> The currently
    proposed BPFK meaning for {.e'i} is just that. >>>> {.e'i} becomes an irrealis
    attitudinal marking a command/order. >>>> Although this may seem like a big
    change to definition of the >>>> word, it seems to be the only way to express
    orders of this kind, >>>> so: >>>> >>>> {.e'i do na broda} >>>> >>>> I'm
   not sure I am 100% behind this definition, but the above >>>> argument speaks
    for it. >>> >>> Given the incredibly tiny usage of {.e'i} according to the
    corpus >>> application (250 uses on IRC, and essentially none elsewhere,
   >>> especially if you ignore xorxes' usages since this was his >>> tinkering),
    I've decided that my household dialect will, in fact, >>> use {.e'i} as a
    command imperative. >>> >> >> who has approved of it: >> 1.camgusmis >> 2.gleki
    >> >> who is against it: >> 1. > > There are many people who would have been
    against it back in the > day, but the only one I know who is still active
    is Arnt. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 12:43:14AM -0700, la gleki wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:56:57 PM UTC+4, Robin Powell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:42:00PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
>>>> la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e
>>>>> 1.  How would you mark a {ko} that's an order?  I use {e'o} for
>>>>> requests.  For "You must do this!" I've been using {ga'i}, but
>>>>> it's a tad unsatisfying.
>>>>
>>>> The currently proposed BPFK meaning for {.e'i} is just that.
>>>> {.e'i} becomes an irrealis attitudinal marking a command/order.
>>>> Although this may seem like a big change to definition of the
>>>> word, it seems to be the only way to express orders of this kind,
>>>> so:
>>>>
>>>> {.e'i do na broda}
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I am 100% behind this definition, but the above
>>>> argument speaks for it.
>>>
>>> Given the incredibly tiny usage of {.e'i} according to the corpus
>>> application (250 uses on IRC, and essentially none elsewhere,
>>> especially if you ignore xorxes' usages since this was his
>>> tinkering), I've decided that my household dialect will, in fact,
>>> use {.e'i} as a command imperative.
>>>
>>
>> who has approved of it:
>> 1.camgusmis
>> 2.gleki
>>
>> who is against it:
>> 1.
>
> There are many people who would have been against it back in the
> day, but the only one I know who is still active is Arnt.

My interpretation of .e'i would have been that it would be expressed by 
someone who is under orders, not giving orders.  I'm not sure that this 
usage is entirely in conflict with your idea, though I think it would be 
one receiving the order who would express it.  You want the kids to feel 
constrained/compelled; you don't feel that way yourself, so perhaps 
empathy needs to be invoked.

Or the scale could be changed in definition to reflect actual usage.

I'll reserve judgement until I think about it a bit more (though of 
course I am "against" all change on principle until we have the baseline 
CLL %^)

lojbab


-- 
Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

-- 
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.