From mark@kli.org Fri Aug 03 11:10:45 2001
Return-Path: <mark@kli.org>
X-Sender: mark@kli.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 18:10:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 32538 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 18:10:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 18:10:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (162.33.229.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 18:10:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 29441 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Aug 2001 18:10:51 -0000
Date: 3 Aug 2001 18:10:51 -0000
Message-ID: <20010803181051.29440.qmail@pi.meson.org>
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Commands
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9124

Hmm... Dunno why my post didn't go through from the website.  Lojbab's came
and said some of the things I wanted to say, though.

Reference, though, http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9109/msg00008.html
which shows the same question asked about third-person imperatives,
answered much the same way: .e'o.

--- In lojban@y..., "Craig" <ragnarok@p...> 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,

You mean it has no singular, right?  :)  Remember, Lojban pro-sumti
are not restricted to singular or plural.  {do} also has no plural,
nor for that matter does {mi}.

> >> and so you can't say 'you all imperative' type constructions, a
la
> >> 'Disperse, ye rebels, disperse!' Therefore, I have just proposed
on the

{ko cliva doi maldamba .i ko cliva} (_pace_ if you don't like the
brivla).  If you must indicate plurals, well, do so like anything
else, even with something as heavy as a {noi so'imei} if you must.

> >> 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?

{roko} works, and is certainly simpler than {noi so'imei}, but of
course, {roko} is also correct even if there's only one person.  "All
of" one is still just one.

> Nothing. Thank you.
> But we still can't do constructions with it like 'let's go.' It's
not a
> command to allow us to go, but rather a command directed at multiple
people,
> including the speaker. Compare it less to 'allow us to go' and more
to
> Spanish 'vamonos' which is in the imperative.

I remember asking about this once, ages and ages agone, I think.

> xu'a would function like xu but making commands rather than
questions, so it
> sounds like xu. But ko'oi works also.

No... something that "functions like {xu}" (i.e. of selma'o UI) but
makes commands instead of questions has another name: {.e'o}. 
Possibly {.e'u} if you prefer.  I think that was the answer I got way
back when as well, if that really happened.

~mark