From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Wed Apr 14 04:03:34 2004
Return-Path: <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 93953 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2004 11:03:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167)
  by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2004 11:03:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.v21.co.uk) (62.41.128.11)
  by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2004 11:03:33 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-189.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.189])
	by kaliber.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i3EB3L302377
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:22 +0100
Message-ID: <000001c42210$1affa840$22e1fea9@oemcomputer>
To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040413043429.GA9141@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:51:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 62.41.128.11
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Scope of ko
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=175222075
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22020

Rob:
> It seems like the "personal pro-sumti" checkpoint of the BPFK should be
> fairly easy to complete, with just one exception: ko.
> 
> I remember some disagreement about the scope of ko, and I'm not sure it
> was ever resolved. Does ko cross ije-connectives? If so, how do you
> connect a non-imperative statement to an imperative one?
> 
> As an example of where the scope of ko really matters, compare these two
> sentences:
> 
> 1. Don't sleep with her just because you want to.
> 2. Don't sleep with her, because you'll catch an STD.
> 
> They require different scopes of a command. How would each one be
> expressed?

(2) can best be done by using {di'u} as an argument of "because".

Any solution based on having "because" scope over imperativity
would be good only if it generalized to other illocutionary
words, which are in UI.

--And.