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 m0r3bk4-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 05:24 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2779; Sat, 05 Nov 94 05:24:48 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2777; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 05:24:47 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3151; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 04:21:41 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 22:28:13 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Cowan weighs in #4: embedded imperatives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1217 Lines: 37 la djan cusku di'e > In Lojban, an imperative is true iff the command is carried out. Is that true? I thought imperatives didn't have truth values. The imperative is a request/order to {do} to act in such a way as to make the statement with {ko} replaced by {do} true. If the command is carried out, then the order is opbeyed. I don't see what meaning it has to say that an obeyed command is "true" and one not obeyed is "false". > 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. I don't think I like it, but I need to think more about it. I would prefer a simpler convention, like saying that the scope of {ko} doesn't include the prenex, then da poi plipe zo'u ko citka da There is an apple such that I'm requesting that you eat it. In any case, I think such cases are very rare. The normal non-definite imperatives are opaque. Jorge