Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA02441 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:33:39 -0500 Message-Id: <199601202033.PAA02441@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F55E7B1F ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 20:58:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 14:48:02 -0600 Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" Sender: Lojban list From: "Steven M. Belknap" Subject: eho naku ko stapa loi sasfoi To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2845 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Jan 20 15:34:09 1996 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Robert Chassell: >In the case of a prohibition, the attitudinal should apply to someone >other than the writer of the sign. This is what {se'inai} is for. > > .e'anai se'inai ko stapa loi sasfoi > > Feel that you are prohibited from: walk on the grass! > How would you interpret: Would it be something like: "Hey you! Keep off the the grass!" (somewhat rude?) >Alternatively, make it false that you walk on the grass: > > ko na stapa loi sasfoi > > [Imperative] make it false that you walk on what is really a > mass of the individual that is the grassy expanse. > This would work as long as we want to reach only the reader of the sign, right? I suppose that might be the practical impact of the English "Keep off the grass" I think means: "Reader-of-this-sign, do not walk on the grass." >The sign writer can be polite: > > e'o ko na stapa loi sasfoi > > [I, the sign writer, feel the emotion of requesting you] > [Imperative] make it false that you walk on the grass. > >or, my preferred rendering: > > e'o naku ko stapa loi sasfoi > Please, let it be false, that you walk on the grass. > Please do not walk on the grass.. > These last two sound like the kind of signs one might see in a "kinder, gentler" nation. I understand Great Britain has more polite signs than the USA or Germany. These would be very good signs that I might put up on my own yard, that is, a polite request, without force of law, to please not ruin my lawn (Actually, I think I *will* put such a sign on my yard!) These utterances do not give the implication of the force of law or adherence to a rule. I am still uncertain how one might write, say, a city ordinance to specify this grass-protecting action. I am struggling with how to apply ko elegantly to a third person: "This is a law which specifies the abstraction that all you people not walk on the grass, such law being a law of Chicago and applying under conditions where this sign is posted. (The legislation includes a picture of the sign.)" Is this a correct use of and ? I am using because I am assuming that the syntax of is flexible enough that I don't have to explicitly say "in places where this sign is posted", as that seems to be implied by the "under conditions" place, but perhaps I am wrong. All this parenthesizing reminds me of algebraic notation calculators; that's why I got a Hewlett-Packard calculator so I could use postfix. cohomihe .la stivn Steven M. Belknap, M.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria email: sbelknap@uic.edu Voice: 309/671-3403 Fax: 309/671-8413