Received: from mail-pa0-f59.google.com ([209.85.220.59]:58724) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UXYV0-0008F0-T5 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:23 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f59.google.com with SMTP id hz10sf546845pad.14 for ; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:x-received :mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=1nhx2LL+xjIXfCpHpydBKhFgZCpXDrj9EBHrNMccfbI=; b=i6d1dubQ8o6z1FwAI6WPDSs7S72CJeRtQtZSq8kl+4ctTJ8obJ/rqMd5P33It+ZHmm Zy7JrLQFcMN6uGu8PTnWpPvfev73RlsLXtzvKnw9+lWpphDcvZ/zlBJ5vihMnHOvzh7/ G582OX/ks1h8vzEz87A0eATbgpE0m9THxASIQyGacyEPQEahRgx9hph0LOfWpvIf84dq nm+kUK7LW5mKeFlTMbYCmqtYTBVz+xw5oenABf2HmWgbdq8tgiwCkMozrQuJrNj7xviA EbbjboTQ4kBxncyooayXsYVK9fIfSu8zGZLTJDiXf4A095+LVEb9v5RxiKHkxulsRaZw NMhg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:x-received :mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=1nhx2LL+xjIXfCpHpydBKhFgZCpXDrj9EBHrNMccfbI=; b=e3xeoYIvKxvzmm+FQ8XcL1u/O8WUpicWlJN8Fl3bAwdm4qw5xMncKNyxLAqtPkZ5Fw nnY0XbJAUfZtcaMojkZVPMjAkleCcqTmnjL7ypgKX+VkjNWWqMDu6OHmM0cZRAhFe17D i5aXaXU/h+nIE6cMOq09bYysdAFHQ4blQNA+HfF6WuVnOL/Necn0nIjwmYAskY2k8P0F +LHuOMzDOw+CQH4y6O4nnL//0MmTj3qc+4HWo3yiRzkbXNIUIsB7IOMvoinqro9aP1sC Tpa9HGwvDxP6oe1TCNTIjYkEZCUFh2BzvAGPwGFSm/1pFcECR1/9xxl4uq1gGNvA5tt6 uuKg== X-Received: by 10.49.17.106 with SMTP id n10mr189147qed.3.1367420348438; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.108.134 with SMTP id hk6ls871504qeb.72.gmail; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.40.2 with SMTP id t2mr2433525vek.12.1367420346919; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id zc17si188907vdb.3.2013.05.01.07.59.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169; Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id gd11so1362384vcb.0 for ; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.120.14 with SMTP id ky14mr950680veb.16.1367420346745; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:59:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.118.79 with HTTP; Wed, 1 May 2013 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51811B75.4030106@lojban.org> 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> <51811B75.4030106@lojban.org> From: ".arpis." Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Robin does the xorban (was Re: [lojban] Baby Words: "you're right" and orders.) To: Lojban X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111d47606f7a304dba95cb9 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e0111d47606f7a304dba95cb9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such different concepts that we want two separate short words for them, especially at the expense of having a short way to be explicit about commands? On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG wrote: > 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 > . > > > -- mu'o mi'e .arpis. -- 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. --089e0111d47606f7a304dba95cb9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Are constraint (e'i) and obligation (ei) such differen= t concepts that we want two separate short words for them, especially at th= e expense of having a short way to be explicit about commands?


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Bob LeCh= evalier, President and Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wro= te:
Robi= n 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. =A0How would you mark a {ko} that's an order? =A0I use {e'o} for=
requests. =A0For "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. =A0I'm not sure that t= his usage is entirely in conflict with your idea, though I think it would b= e one receiving the order who would express it. =A0You want the kids to fee= l constrained/compelled; you don't feel that way yourself, so perhaps e= mpathy 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 cou= rse I am "against" all change on principle until we have the base= line CLL %^)

lojbab


--
Bob LeChevalier =A0 =A0lojbab@lojban.org =A0 =A0www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
mu'o mi= 'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--089e0111d47606f7a304dba95cb9--