From mark@kli.org Fri Aug 03 11:32:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 18:32:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 57704 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 18:31:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 18:31:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (162.33.229.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 18:31:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 29513 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Aug 2001 18:31:56 -0000 Date: 3 Aug 2001 18:31:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20010803183156.29512.qmail@pi.meson.org> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Commands From: "Mark E. Shoulson" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9125 Damn, yahoo ate my response again. wtf is going on? --- In lojban@y..., "Craig" wrote: > >"lets go" has a different solution, either using ".e'u" for suggestion with > >a bridi, or if you want an assertive sense "doi mi'o ko cliva > > Doesn't allowing .e'u or .e'o to make a command contradict actual usage, > which is supposed to decide everything? The precedent is that an .e'o or > .e'u still needs a ko to be a command - {.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.} for > example. I tend to be prescriptivist when I'm not watching anyway. But at any rate, there is no contradiction. {.e'o} is an attitudinal. It means "I am feeling requesting/commanding. Something about whatever this word is attached to (which needn't be the whole sentence) is making me feel like I'm requesting or ordering something." In the case of {e'osai ko sarji la lojban.}, well, it IS a command, so that's understandable. The {e'o} here serves only to emphasize that, and possibly soften the command into a request. But that doesn't mean I can't say {e'o mi'o cliva}: I'm making a request, that {mi joi do} leave (the veridicality of UI-marked jufra is another matter). (Yes, this example could have been {mi joi ko cliva}). And I can even say {.e'o ko'a cliva}, requesting (from whoever's listening) that {ko'a} leave (perhaps I'm asking that ko'a be sent away?) > BTW, what (if anything) does "doi mi ko klama" mean? Self-exhortation. You're talking to yourself and telling yourself to go. Maybe with a different choice of brivla, {doi mi ko...} would be appropriate in something like "Come on, hurry up, they're gaining on you! Run faster!" said to *yourself*. Note, though, that that isn't strictly true. {mi} does *N*O*T* means "I/me." It means "I/me/we/us." Pro-sumti are not number-restricted! To be sure, when you use {mi}, there is a certain unity of purpose implied, so {doi mi ko...} still is self-exhortation. If you were addressing others in your "we"-group to do something together with you, you should be saying {mi'o}={mi joi do}, since {do} is by definition the people you're talking to. But {doi mi} basically means you're talking to yourself (and let's face it, we've all been in situations where that's the most intelligent conversation you're going to get). ~mark