From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:28:22 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3539 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:28:20 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 03:25:25 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa26812; 22 Jun 95 4:24 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5201; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:22:55 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4568; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:34:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 17:29:04 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: imperatives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506220424.aa26812@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R > Of course ".e'ucai do" ".e'ocai do" might also be taken as very strong > requests and/or exhortations, but would not be imperative in nature. I don't know what you mean by "imperative in nature". {e'ucai do klama} to me does not make the claim {do klama}, it doesn't say that you go, so it is not in the indicative mood. > >Yes, that's what I'm talking about. {e'o}, {e'u} and {ei} all are > >useful to translate the imperative mood. > I don't think so, unless you are talking about imperative mood usages > from other languages that aren'e really imperatives. I'm talking about things that in other languages use tenses from what is called the imperative mood, whether they are commands or not. If you like, let's call it the exhortative mood, or whatever. Something that contrasts with the indicative. > >How do you > >say "let's go to your house" without turning it into "let's go to > >our house"? I would just say {e'u mi'o klama le do zdani}. > > That would get the point across without actually using an imperative > mood. Especially since I have trouble thinking of most usages of > "let's" as being all that imperative. It doesn't matter what we call it. That sentence does not claim that we go, that's all. It's in the other-than-indicative mood. > But if you insist on a imperative Not at all. I'm the one who is saying that {ko} is not essential. I certainly don't want to use it for {mi'o}. > you can "doimi'o ko doido'u". The > latter phrase could be replaced by "da'o" if you had no other pro-sumti > to avoid resetting. We could probably adopt by convention "ko goi/po'u > mi'o" as much shorter ways to do imperative "let's". I don't need it. I'm quite happy with {e'u mi'o}, {e'o mi'o}, {ei mi'o}. Jorge