From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sun Sep 08 11:59:24 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Sep 2002 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17o7HB-00045J-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 11:59:22 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g88J4IwD084737
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 14:04:23 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g88J4IPa084736
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 14:04:18 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 14:04:18 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: Re: [lojban] me le cmalu turni me'u panomoi bo pagbu
Message-ID: <20020908190418.GA84375@allusion.net>
References: <F80XsL1c00goZolmRBa0000004d@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F80XsL1c00goZolmRBa0000004d@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 985
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 06:38:14PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la greg cusku di'e
> > > i e'e do ja'a kakne
> >
> >{e'edai} I think this a case where {dai} should be used ju'oru'e

  mi la greg. tugni

> To better understand {e'e} I look at its neighbours:
>=20
> e'a  permission: you may do it! I let you do it.
> e'e  exhortation: you can do it! I encourage you to do it.
> e'o  request: please do it! I ask you to do it.
> e'u  suggestion: you might do it! I suggest you do it.
> ei   obligation: you should do it! I think you should do it.

erm... {ei} is almost always used to talk about the speaker.
for example:
	ca gunka .ei
means "I need to work", not "you should work".

> They are all primarily oriented to the actions of the hearer,
> though this is by no means a restriction: {do} need not be the
> agent of the bridi, it might be someone else. The speaker
> is the one who gives permission, exhorts, requests, suggests
> or feels that something should be done, it is not the one
> allowed, exhorted, asked, suggested or obliged to do something,
> unless of course the actor is {mi}.

If I say
	do ca gunka .ei
it means that *I* feel obliged that you work.  (Perhaps i'm a
middle-manager).  To mean what you want I think the dai is neccesary:
	do ca gunka .eidai

> >Hey, I just noticed why your texts look so attractive: you've gotten rid=
 of
> >all those unnecessary explicit {.}
>=20
> Exactly :)

  no'i .oi traji mabla zo'o .i mi jinvi ledu'u me'o denpa bu cu melbi
  .i ru'a le ni ri slabu re do cu na banzu zo'o

--=20
Jordan DeLong
fracture@allusion.net


--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9e58xDrrilS51AZ8RAhTQAJ0f7A6zSbagYjBD7HU0x79pM8p8iACfWxvL
MIjiK4GqMZ0yOpLd2PSFbfw=
=WNVS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--