Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r3Y5q-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 01:30 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8827; Sat, 05 Nov 94 01:31:03 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8826; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 01:30:20 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0797; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 00:14:04 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:26:01 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Cowan weighs in #4: embedded imperatives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1273 Lines: 35 I believe that pc's characterization of: 1) ko cuxna lo karda as involving "an opaque context without a word to set the context" can be resolved by concocting a way of embedding imperatives. We can now embed questions, albeit painfully, by using "le du'u ... kau ... kei" where the "kau" is attached to the thing-being-questioned. I propose that we make a small exception to the rule of "kau". In general, the particular word to which "kau" is attached doesn't really matter, except that it may set a default: mi djuno le du'u la djan. kau klama la zarci I know who went to the store, viz. John. However, if the word is "ko", let us say that this is an embedded imperative. In Lojban, an imperative is true iff the command is carried out. So with this convention we can say: ko ciska lo plipe Eat any apple! vs. da poi plipe zo'u le du'u kokau ciska da cu jetnu There is an apple such that "eat it!" is true. There is an apple which you are commanded to eat! I haven't thought this out carefully, and the syntax may need some refinement, but I think the idea is basically right. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.