From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhDQ7azsBBoE4I7LRg@googlegroups.com Thu Mar 24 05:19:50 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2jVu-0003xq-A4; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:47 -0700 Received: by vxc33 with SMTP id 33sf2231700vxc.16 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=IU6gizpbuRAZIV8m0FjtBeAYwpf4JLFsvzOlmTpHeeY=; b=TC9koZyeN5swp+jW9f3tLMt5omA2ccvS2yJOyXAQL3X0GNs1ZEZeXyMfnGD74o3Y0Y JQAEVEmzRDd2T2vJl415VUpYmbtbd/Atrq+w8pPOUsQEpPzeKwCD+HTJZhQ21jh/x9Nb d2ECj7/1b5oSa+ib05fliyyTJiuGref8enVVU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=baB2YmJAVTiDWobVVIyYfX1GIDVgLLgQJwRQm2WsP6HKrNRrutLPiW1FrmrKWM+fYF YL+BAH/nF5lDtkBFotWhlocVkTN391avUvNjPIcQhpLZqnHEVYSvCAi/hSRx5iM4RxoN BEOUOuGLfraxIlu0GfFOqI6GsqxfB679hEJzg= Received: by 10.220.88.67 with SMTP id z3mr551890vcl.7.1300969168978; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.192.205 with SMTP id dr13ls199980vcb.1.p; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.177.4 with SMTP id bg4mr1953340vcb.15.1300969168038; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.177.4 with SMTP id bg4mr1953339vcb.15.1300969168007; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f48.google.com (mail-qw0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d1si475680vch.14.2011.03.24.05.19.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.48; Received: by qwj9 with SMTP id 9so8533896qwj.35 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.51.214 with SMTP id e22mr6804980qcg.156.1300969167561; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.9.19 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:19:27 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] I'm sure I've missed it but, "ko" for "You and Me" ... From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:48 AM, tijlan wrote: > On 24 March 2011 01:56, .arpis. wrote: >> {doi mi'o ko klama le xotli} - {doi} explicitly assigns {do} to be {mi'o}, >> so {ko} commands the speaker and the listener to go to the hotel; similarly >> {ma'a} for the entire group. (gejyspa posted this before I finished my >> reply) > > I'm not sure that {doi} *explicitly assigns* {do} to anything. {do} > excludes all non-{do} KOhA3 except {ko}, Please show me where that is written. According to the CLL (7.2, 13.14) all vocatives (COI and DOI) assign do, except mi'e which assigns mi (the only difference between DOI and COI is that DOI doesn't have to pause before cmevla) That being said, I am not in disagreement that "doi mi'o ko klama le xotli" is fundamentally different from "e'u mi'o klama le xotli" and that the latter is usually what is meant by the English "let's go to the hotel". The former is more like a parent talking to a child -- "You, me, hotel, now!" It's unusual to command oneself, but it certainly can be done -- Enough of that, gejyspa, You need to stop screwing around on mail lists and go to work!. --gejyspa > so it can't really be turned > into or substitute for {mi'o}. {do} refers only to the listener, and > {mi'o} refers to both the listener and the speaker; these cmavo are > semantically distinct by definition. If a command or suggestion is > intended for the listener *and* the speaker, more than {do} are to be > involved in the first place. What's at stake is the indexicality not > of {do} but of that which is commanded or suggested to be the agent of > a particular action or event (e.g. going to the hotel). > > The fundamental linguistic element of a command or suggestion is "mood": > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood > In Lojban, this is most expressible through UI and COI. Lojban has > this advantage in expressing a mood in a more grammatically distinct > and isomorphic manner than in many other languages. The English > sequence of words "you do this" can be indicative or interrogative or > jussive / imperative or something else, depending on non-isomorphic > elements such as intonation, punctuation, etc., whereas Lojban can > lexically differentiate them with {ju'a}, {xu}, {a'o}, {e'i}, and so > on. > > {ko} is an oddball -- a sumti charged with some mood. According to > BPFK, it's "an imperative pro-sumti for "you," the person or people > that the speaker is addressing": > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Personal+Pro-sumti > On top of being imperative more than suggestive in its function, {ko} > by definition excludes non-{do}, so it doesn't appear useful in a > less-than-imperative intended-for-you-and-me utterance such as "Let's > go to the hotel". (For that, we can resort to the more clear-cut and > thus arguably more Lojbanic options such as {e'u mi'o klama le > xotli}.) > > > On 24 March 2011 01:43, Jonathan Jones wrote: >> ko is not inherently singular, in the same way that English "you" isn't. (In >> the old days, "you" was plural, and "thou" was singular, but "thou" fell out >> of use. >> >> None of the pro-sumti are inherently singular or plural. do is "the >> listener(s)", mi is "the speaker(s)", etc. > > True. What differentiates {do} from {mi'o}, for instance, isn't the > number of entities but the combination of different sorts of entities. > {do} excludes "the speaker (1st person)" & "others (3rd person)" and > thus differs also from {mi'o}, {do'o}, etc. > > > mu'o > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.