Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t3k6U-0000ZOC; Fri, 13 Oct 95 15:24 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 19A3A3BC ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:24:42 +0100 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:20:43 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: "ko" considered bad X-To: dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1389 Lines: 27 >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