Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.236 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.236;
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:27:58 -0700
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Robin does the xorban (was Re: [lojban] Baby Words: "you're
 right" and orders.)
Message-ID: <20130502222757.GZ10220@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51811B75.4030106@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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-Disposition: inline
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:41:09AM -0400, 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.  

Yes, the point here is that this is a change to the language.  This
is why I used the word "dialect".

The motivation for the change is that {.e'i} is almost totally
unused, it overlaps with {.ei}, and the other things in that
category, like {.e'o}, are other-directed.

-Robin

-- 
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.