From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Fri Aug 03 09:32:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 16:32:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 45545 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 16:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 16:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 16:31:30 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id f73GVTF02015 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:31:29 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:31:29 -0600 (MDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] commands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Jay Kominek X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9117 On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Craig wrote: > On the Portland Pattern Repository's wiki, it was observed that there is no > way to express an imperative in lojban without using ko. Ko has no plural, > and so you can't say 'you all imperative' type constructions, a la > 'Disperse, ye rebels, disperse!' Therefore, I have just proposed on the > Lojban wiki a cmavo, xu'a, which would function like xu but make the bridi a > command, allowing plural imperatives and statements like 'let's go.' Clearly > we need commands other than ko, which is actually rather limited. > 1. Am I unknowingly inventing a way to do something that can really already > be done? What is wrong with roko? > 2. What do you think of this proposal, if I'm not? There are other catagories of cmavo available for experimentation, aren't there? If so, at least use something that resembles the other relevent pro-sumti. (ko'oi or something) - Jay Kominek