Message-Id: <m0sS8od-0000YjC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 1 Jul 1995 15:50:16 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: imperatives
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4776
Lines: 110

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >The subjunctive in Spanish is used only for subordinate clauses.  I'm
> >not sure, but that seems to be what its etymology is.
> If I understand my dictionary, but I think the word "subjunctive mood"
> in English is used for what you call "counterfactuals".

Well, in Spanish too, but always in subordinate clauses. "I wish
that...", "I would like that...", "I would do it if ...", etc. the sentence
that goes after the "that" or "if" would be in the subjunctive in Spanish.
So yes, it is used for counterfactuals, but always in subordinate clauses.

>  "Conditional"
> is specific to clauses using the word "if" and doesn't seem to be a
> "mood" as opposed to a kind of clause.

Well, that's the same in Spanish. You give the counterfactual condition
in a subordinate clause in the subjunctive, and then the main clause
is expressed in the conditional mood. In "if pigs had wings, they
would fly" "pigs had wings" would be in the subjunctive, and "they would
fly" would be in the conditional. "They would fly" is the main clause,
but it is not a claim that pigs fly.

> Given this discussion, I
> think my use of imperative in the Lord's Prayer may be inappropriate
> unless so heavily modified by attitudes that it comes across as "I am
> not worthy or justified to be doing this but I tell you anyway to give
> me bread because of my need". (Can't remember if I did this).

No, you have a bare {ko}, and I think it is perfectly all right.
I don't think it is necessary that the speaker have any authority over
the audience to use {ko}.

> The primary justification for imperative in the Lord's Prayer, is that
> we are requesting a specific action of the Listener to implement our
> "request".

Exactly. Requests are a perfectly good use of {ko}.

> >.e'a           permission
> >.e'o           request
> >.e'u           suggestion
> >.ei            obligation
> >
> ".e'a do tcidu ti" cannot be a counterfactual since the reader won't
> know I wrote it unless he makes it true.

Why does he have to know you wrote it? All he has to do to understand
what you mean is see what are you pointing at.

If you meant ".e'a do tcidu dei", it still makes sense. Just as
"e'anai do tcidu dei" makes sense. That the reader is taking
advantage of the permission or violating the prohibition is a
separate matter. (I never said that "imperatives", or e-attitudinals,
to avoid the word "imperative", are counterfactual.)

> >I don't understand {e'e} and {e'i}.
>
> ".e'i mi klama le briju"
> "I'm compelled to go to the office; I have no other choice."

What's the difference between that and {ei mi klama le briju}?

> ".e'e mi klama le gusta" "*Of course* I am capable of going to the
> restaurant.  What do you think I am?"

Well, that can be seen as self-encouragement. {e'e do klama le gusta}
is even clearer. I don't think I'll be misunderstood if I use {e'e}
for encouragement: "come on, you can do it!".

> ".e'inai" conveys one kind of daring.  There are also others that can
> convey it. (e.g. .ai.ii)

I think you are mixing two meanings of "to dare". One thing is to
dare/have the guts to do something, another is to dare/challenge someone
to do something. What does "constraint" mean? If {e'inai} is to
challenge/dare someone, why isn't the scale reversed? {e'inai} seems
like the more useful one.

> We once tried to make all the attitudinals work like you suggest, but it
> wasn't that effective - too many exceptions and too much metaphysics,
> and too little usage that fit the formal specs.

I'm not asking for much reform, just reversing the scale of {e'i},
but it's not that important. Are there any examples of actual
usage of {e'i}?

> The attitudinal
> revision represented the end of the era of this kind of systematicity,
> in favor of the current different kind.

What different kind? Is there any kind of systematicity in them?


> ".ei la nik. gunka le {thesis}" is an expression that I recognize that
> Nick is obliged to be working on his thesis AS HE IS rather than joining
> in our merry debates.  I may have a mixed degree of acceptance of this
> necessary evil %^), and I certainly don't "approve" of it when it causes
> us to miss his valuable insights.  But I can recognize that his
> thesis-writing is the way the world SHOULD BE whether I want it, approve
> of it, or accept it.  Indeed if ".ei" expresses any imperative, it is to
> myself to not interfere in that obligation, much as I would like to bug
> Nick to death on some issues he may have valuable insights on.

You seem to be describing "resignation" rather than "obligation", but
even then, you could use an "imperative" for that. Your phrase could
perfectly well go into Esperanto as "Ho ve! Nicxjo laboru pri sia tezo",
using a third person imperative.

Jorge