Received: from mail-vc0-f192.google.com ([209.85.220.192]:51040) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UZb6J-0007v2-20 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 23:10:26 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f192.google.com with SMTP id gd11sf59767vcb.19 for ; Mon, 06 May 2013 23:10:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received: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=SKccP7EidNc7K45psc8JH2Va2sH82Q8kZTmNkcExRS0=; b=yRb60vakLHPqij84RcPd8Era86Gg53vfDwPvngXiuMNQpIeHiCQaiXOnJ77dXEzkQx XzZ2MG6uetvpHHsfRS9RAOJ3ltpZz9D+TMYuiQKbipDGAghR8jAo3jKRZY6y4rec0ZHh Wu1obQ6tcGh/V79HDhjrVbpAloOaJ23Ir19HDIHODJaBIYLT4TG2It5dCE9ONZDpzgjo Hb78qFjIbslR57HTnVqOX7dNdrk13pRopQ0thaz2AThZcTCJK9p2YKtHnOQubhmgiUGO NUTZVBY0y9Y/OkGTXzTEAluSiMUeyJOYFDEJPaCw10D1bhRAWexqWfJYq6Ny/NPKpIcN snFg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received: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=SKccP7EidNc7K45psc8JH2Va2sH82Q8kZTmNkcExRS0=; b=OeEFl32ub5P9pN+8Rf6eOVkHdgvV4ZD5ED0SOpGwZv1gf4Vb7ambTOq4q2Tsi5DWsx 5j/am8cLfKhoi2LRrb8F2elMCjeSXKUubQ9RnYaayEWSrvm/AxHCbnRZayGf9YAJ/lWm 1ACaNmwFyV1JWZ6iUYGX0MTgdo+3MOZTl0+CMbs6HzYtB91theCjbEXUQCrWH8yM6p65 OomQ04+I/uvxIPfTMkcVRwsHGkGBXaG1DgaPij85PX7CGv5MIr3nz8CfPRUkewNitxTA IzuNysJVI4/LnnxU2lISg3/C/WFa+qnanc+j+jnzJIkFTgwhcCUN/SW8D0BRrWQJlPfH 0lAg== X-Received: by 10.49.35.129 with SMTP id h1mr26832qej.28.1367907004320; Mon, 06 May 2013 23:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.121.229 with SMTP id ln5ls140015qeb.36.gmail; Mon, 06 May 2013 23:10:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.30.168 with SMTP id t8mr27543qeh.8.1367907003831; Mon, 06 May 2013 23:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 23:10:03 -0700 (PDT) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <6f8da748-aa03-4c4c-bbb2-c7662790621c@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20130504201243.GE20411@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <51856E57.2010808@gmx.de> <20130504202515.GG20411@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <55921D19-DB32-4D41-B6E9-1552B5BC9AB3@yahoo.com> <3A8DBDCA-994A-4A20-9BAD-A3A4F3561B49@yahoo.com> <5F42DC95-D2C4-4B0D-B018-A4BC82AAFB06@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Robin retry: commands. 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1995_13054710.1367907003477" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_1995_13054710.1367907003477 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:14:40 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote: > > On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpis. > wrote: > >> >> >> If I understand {ga'i} correctly, it marks the referent to be of lower >>> rank. I don't think this is appropriate to mark it as a command. >>> >> >> {ga'i} marks the speaker to be higher rank; {ga'i nai} marks the speaker >> to be lower rank. >> > > Actually, it marks rank of the speaker compared to the attached thing, > which is a subtle distinction. > > e.g. {.i lo ga'i gerku cu melbi} has the dog marked as being the thing > towards which the speaker feels higher. > > Although rank has a connection to the *ability* to give orders, typically, > I wouldn't say that using {ga'i} is a *way* to give orders though. > > >> >> >>> >>> {le'o}, according to jbovlaste is aggressiveness. If the commander >>> feels the need to be aggressive when giving commands, that hints to >>> some kind of inner shortcoming, so that he feels he needs to give the >>> command some additional force to compensate; and that makes it, in my >>> opinion, not a universal way to mark a "ko-bridi" as a command. >>> >> >> I agree. >> > > I agree too. {le'o} is the kind of thing a store owner would say when > kicking you out. The subtext is generally supposed to match up with the > text in Lojban, which is why indicators exist. > > >> >>> {e'i} is "feeling constraint" according to jbovlaste. According to the >>> Merrian-Webster dictionary (sorry, I'm not an English-native), >>> "constraint" is: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> >>> This seems to be the way the one receiving the command should feel, >>> not the commander's. >>> >> >> Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to use >> dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and {e'a}. >> > > In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it. > Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical IRC > jbopre. > I vote against redefining it. For me e'i = sei bilga ei = sei te javni e'o = sei cpedu and so on. if u redefine e'i as command then we lose {sei bilga} meaning. If you use .ei for that then we lose {sei te javni} meaning. http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals has the following text: "selpa'i uses {.ei} as "should" and {.e'i} as "must" (as in {.e'i mi'o denpa .i lo sorpeka pu'o zvati}), I (camgusmis) think that's pretty good. The {.e'e} here is obviously out of the question, and I think keeping something like "must" is worth it, too, and closer to what we have." I don't know what happened to that obvious solution. In any case please don't deprive me of {sei bilga} and {sei te javni}. > >> >>> According to jbovlaste, {e'o} means "attitudinal: request - negative >>> request.". This doesn't look like a feeling, more like an intention; >>> the speaker's intention to make a request. There might be a plethora >>> of different feelings attached to this intention depending on the one >>> making the request. This is what we need to mark a "ko-bridi" as a >>> command. We need to clearly state the "ko-bridi" is a command. >> >> I'm no expert here, so I may be wrong, but my understanding on "ko >>> broda" is it means "make {ko broda} true", either as a request, or as >>> a command. The CLL makes a request explicit with "e'o ko broda". >>> >>> What about "e'onai ko broda"? {e'onai} means "negative request" >>> according to jbovlaste. So what is a negative request? My naive >>> interpretation: >>> >> >>> e'onai ko broda >>> negative request, make "ko broda" true >>> this is not a request, make "ko broda" true >>> this is an order, make "ko broda" true >>> >>> The experts here can explain why I am wrong.... >>> >> >> "negative request" seems to have been interpreted as "please don't" in >> the few uses I read of the few uses I found (here: >> http://www.lojban.org/corpus/) >> The BPFK proposed revision is to make {e'o nai} an offer. >> The problem with your logic for making {e'o nai} a command is that an >> analogous argument can be made for {e'u nai}. >> >> >> > A command to "not do" ? Sounds like {.e'o do na broda}. Why should the > attitudinal just "include negation". Sounds like an extremely pointless > feature. The BPFK's idea seems best. {.i .e'onai do da pinxe} -> "Would you > like something to drink?" > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > -- 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. ------=_Part_1995_13054710.1367907003477 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:14:40 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpi= s. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>


If I understand {ga'i} correctly, it marks the referent to be of lower
rank. I don't think this is appropriate to mark it as a command.

{ga'i} marks the speaker to be higher rank;= {ga'i nai} marks the speaker to be lower rank.

Actually, it marks rank of the= speaker compared to the attached thing, which is a subtle distinction.

e.g. {.i lo ga'i gerku cu melbi} has the dog marked a= s being the thing towards which the speaker feels higher.

Although rank has a connection to the *ability* to give= orders, typically, I wouldn't say that using {ga'i} is a *way* to give ord= ers though.
 
 
=

{le'o}, according to jbovlaste is aggressiveness. If the commander
feels the need to be aggressive when giving commands, that hints to
some kind of inner shortcoming, so that he feels he needs to give the
command some additional force to compensate; and that makes it, in my
opinion, not a universal way to mark a "ko-bridi" as a command.

I agree.

I agree too. {le'o} is the kind of thing a store = owner would say when kicking you out. The subtext is generally supposed to = match up with the text in Lojban, which is why indicators exist.
 

{e'i} is "feeling constraint" according to jbovlaste. According to the
Merrian-Webster dictionary (sorry, I'm not an English-native),
"constraint" is:

[...]


This seems to be the way the one receiving the command should feel,
not the commander's.

Yes, but the= discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to use dialectically)= {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and {e'a}.

In case we're taki= ng votes, I vote in favour of redefining it. Dialectically, it is already u= sed that way by the handful of typical IRC jbopre.
<= /blockquote>


I vote against redefining it= . For me

e'i =3D sei bilga
ei =3D sei te= javni
e'o =3D sei cpedu

and so on.

if u redefine e'i as command then we lose {sei bilga} = meaning. If you use .ei for that then we lose {sei te javni} meaning.
=

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Att= itudinals has the following text:

"selpa'i use= s {.ei} as "should" and {.e'i} as "must" (as in {.e'i mi'o denpa .i lo sorp= eka pu'o zvati}), I (camgusmis) think that's pretty good. The {.e'e} here i= s obviously out of the question, and I think keeping something like "must" = is worth it, too, and closer to what we have."

I don't know what happened to that obvious solution.
=
In any case please don't deprive me of {sei bilga} and {sei = te javni}.

 

According to jbovlaste, {e'o} means "attitudinal: request - negative
request.". This doesn't look like a feeling, more like an intention;
the speaker's intention to make a request. There might be a plethora
of different feelings attached to this intention depending on the one
making the request. This is what we need to mark a "ko-bridi" as a
command. We need to clearly state the "ko-bridi" is a command. 
=
I'm no expert here, so I may be wrong, but my understanding on "ko
broda" is it means "make {ko broda} true", either as a request, or as
a command. The CLL makes a request explicit with "e'o ko broda".

What about "e'onai ko broda"? {e'onai} means "negative request"
according to jbovlaste. So what is a negative request? My naive
interpretation:

e'onai ko broda
negative request, make "ko broda" true
this is not a request, make "ko broda" true
this is an order, make "ko broda" true

The experts here can explain why I am wrong....
=

"negative request" seems to have been interpreted as "p= lease don't" in the few uses I read of the few uses I found (here: http://www.lojban.org/= corpus/)
The BPFK proposed revision is to make {e'o nai} an offer.
The problem with your logic for making {e'o nai} a command is that an an= alogous argument can be made for {e'u nai}.



A command to "not do" ? Sounds like {.e'o do na broda}. Why should th= e attitudinal just "include negation". Sounds like an extremely pointless f= eature. The BPFK's idea seems best. {.i .e'onai do da pinxe} -> "Would y= ou like something to drink?"

.i mi'e la tsani  mu'o

--
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.
 
 
------=_Part_1995_13054710.1367907003477--