Message-Id: <9201271527.AA02248@relay2.UU.NET>
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 1992 10:24:23 EST
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      More subjunctives
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu's message of Sun,
              26 Jan 1992 16:20:35 +1100
Status: RO

Nick writes, about "xi lo pilno ka'e cpedu lenu na go'a":

>Not quite. {ka'e} really means {.e'a} here (rebarbitant pedantry in English,
>but valid in Lojban). In fact, Dr Don Broadribb, who has been through the
>Esp brochure, criticised Loglan in 1960 in an AL mag, pointing out that there
>was nothing unbiased about using logic and using {selma'o} (JCB responded
>with the answer which has since become standard), and as an example of the
>language's selma'o arbitrariness gave the fact that "should" in in UI, and not
>in CAhA (mutatis mutandis). I've made the mistake too, but unless we interpret
>{kakne} very liberally, this should be {.e'apei lo pilno cu cpedu lenu na go'a}
>or {xu curmi lenu lo pilno cu cpedu lenu na go'a} or {xu lo pilno cu zifre
>lenu cpedu lenu na go'a}. (Note that, if you uncleft {curmi} and {zifre},
>they end up being the same word. This is why not everything can be unclefted.
>I trust Messrs Cowan and Lechevalier will soon report on their gi'uste
>adventures?

Yeah, that's right.  I should have seen it.  That's one thing that really
bugged me in one of the lessons, with the menu (uhh... shuffle, shuffle...
ah!), lesson 5, page 5-50.  Last line: "do kakne lenu cpedu le silna claxu
nu jukpa" ("You are capable of the act of requesting the salt-without type
of cooking").  Struck me as odd.  I'm capable of asking for anything the
hell I want.  The sentence didn't tell me anything new.  The point is that
the restaurant might respond.  That's something different.

~mark (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)