Date:         Thu, 28 May 1998 13:15:36 -0400
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
Subject:      Re: ko ko kurji
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <896375888.1126577.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1672
Lines: 41


la djordj. cusku di'e

> > Yes.  "ko do kurji" is "Take care of yourself!" and "do ko kurji"
> > is "Be the one who takes care of you!"
>
> Surely the last means "Be the one who is taken care of by you!"?

Whoops, yes.  Lojbab also pointed this out.

> Right... so in Lojban it's not actually a property of the bridi,
> but of the individual 2nd-person pronoun?

I think it's still correct to call imperativeness a bridi property
that happens to be expressed on a sumti.  Contradictory negation, e.g.,
is also a bridi property, though it is expressed on the selbri
using "na".

> I wonder if it would
> have been useful to be able to make other prosumti imperative,
> i.e. "Make me speak in Lojban" would be "?? tavla fo la lojban",
> where ?? is an imperative version of "mi".  How would this be
> expressed in Lojban at the moment?  "ko xlura mi lenu mi tavla
> fo la lojban", or something similar?

Sounds good to me.  You can also say "ko zo'u mi tavla fo la lojban.",
using the topic-comment construction, but your version is clearer.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)