From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:45:36 2010
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Fri Dec  8 20:55:12 1995
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: comments on CONN.TXT
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec  8 20:55:12 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <F-Fl6BaWk7N.A.kLF.Qu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Jorge:
> > 7. 13.7 "An imperative sentence [lio] is true if the command is obeyed".
> > The discussion is potentially misleading. It should be explained that
> > one could obey the command not only by bringing tea, but also by instead
> > making this not be coffee. Therefore it is only an approximate and
> > misleading translation of the English.
> I'm glad you think that. The fact that {do} is an argument of the
> command is purely circumstantial, that's why I think that an attitudinal
> is much better than {ko} for imperatives. In other words, "act so as to
> make it true that X happens" does not need {do} to be an argument of X
> in general.

Is there no UI that'll do this? I imagine that {ko} was influenced
partly by English imperatives and partly by the wish to make imperatives
that contain references to the addressee one cmavo shorter.
---
And