Message-Id: <199510131403.KAA21185@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:20:43 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: "ko" considered bad
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>Yes, I see what what you mean.  Now that I have the imperative using
>attitudinals, it is a very much better way to do things than using "ko".  Is
>"ko" a relic?

No.

>  It is certainly an easy concept for a beginner to grasp, but
>a lojbani can achieve much finer gradations of meaning without it.

Fine, if you want to achieve fine gradations of meaning.  But if you just
want to communicate the imperative, ko replacing do is much more brief
and clear.  Imperative, especially 2nd person, has other properties besides
a simple expression of desire.  Otherwise we in English could do without
the imperative by saying "I want you to", I suggest you, I order you to
I need you to, etc. for exactly the same range and gradations of meaning.
But ko, and the imperative in many languages, has a peremptory nature to
it.  It puts the focus NOT on my expressed emotional state, but on you
the listener, and what I want/expect/hope/order/all-of-the-above you to do.

You get the imperative of all the other pro-sumti by saying "doimi"  doido'o"
etc. if it is not clear who "ko" is referring to.  Of course, if you are talking
 to yourself, it ius obvious who "ko" is.  And if you are talking to someone
else, the essential thing to communicate is what THEY are supposed to do.
If you want a mixed imperative, you can use doi, or you can just expand the
pro-sumti:  kojoimi = kodoimi'o

lojbab