Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1Ml7g1-0002W5-0z	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:52:33 -0700
Received: from mail-vw0-f193.google.com ([209.85.212.193])	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <lukeabergen@gmail.com>)	id 1Ml7fx-0002VS-RF	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:52:32 -0700
Received: by vws31 with SMTP id 31so2584443vws.28        for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;        bh=w6rmhYnZgtf8DI3PKWM89cEQy60svA8eMW+Fd1chOJg=;        b=BBzCLqDdp/zZJ/XQpeWeXT9X4Ae0wJKx2cYckIFR1lBF3edqrk8XEOGwy/pjQL4Vkm         NYuNONi0FxpB1y8pJk/wFK/FJHJbFoWynE+PCTUpbbWfWwYtY6tqYMUIWfbaeKFgzOTu         TNRQgQpImSl6cDMXpVX1dq4NYfWXd5f57Mys8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type;        b=OVVAg4BFvP2FQecjjPujQDPWnB1TR/cAed2fACHKrDwXwFwgppP01DVbAJ5bRJVL/k         aD5OV70hMjH812YWpPStN2yIYz+uF0vUv46oibcfCboM9tNac1D49D8a9Iodr9D2Nxx5         CSUioscW68OdKXayrGDb5JX8YHfCtnzMWDE58=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.45.8 with SMTP id s8mr25353544ybs.337.1252443143440; Tue, 	08 Sep 2009 13:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e6e140ec0909081342n6dd57e4epd1b1fb28446b3f6c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cc9.5a3ba81c.37d53aa4@wmconnect.com>	 <96f789a60909071000m7efdb840kcb37646a3cd5c7c5@mail.gmail.com>	 <9ada8ecd0909081255m2215bd02oae0eb2cb8949463e@mail.gmail.com>	 <e6e140ec0909081342n6dd57e4epd1b1fb28446b3f6c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:52:23 -0400
Message-ID: <5715b9300909081352k59c75392kddb900292e4e324c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: let us
From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd330a4aa88dc0473172455
X-archive-position: 2254
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-beginners
Content-Length: 2832

--000e0cd330a4aa88dc0473172455
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

That's how I always understood it as well.  I think the tricky bit that
Squark is talking about is that it is difficult to express imperativeness
when addressing oneself (or specifically in his question, "us" which has
"me" implicit in it).

the fact that {ko} has "you" implicit in it always kind of bothered me as
well.  It still kind of does.  We have attitudinals for things like "{me
imperative} go to the store" with {.ai klama lo zarci} but that doesn't seem
entirely right either.

It's a little disappointing to me that lojban doesn't have a more generic
form for just plain {imperative} which could have {do} tacked onto it (or
{mi}, {mi'o}, {da}, etc...) without the need for the clumsy {doi mi .i ko
klama lo zarci}.  But oh well.  Maybe something to take note of for LoCCan.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:

> I always thought "let us" (or, more commonly, "let's") was a way to
> say first-person plural imperative of verbs in English. For example,
> "let's go" - first-person plural imperative of the verb "to go".
>
>
>
>

--000e0cd330a4aa88dc0473172455
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That&#39;s how I always understood it as well.=A0 I think the tricky bit th=
at Squark is talking about is that it is difficult to express imperativenes=
s when addressing oneself (or specifically in his question, &quot;us&quot; =
which has &quot;me&quot; implicit in it).<br>
<br>the fact that {ko} has &quot;you&quot; implicit in it always kind of bo=
thered me as well.=A0 It still kind of does.=A0 We have attitudinals for th=
ings like &quot;{me imperative} go to the store&quot; with {.ai klama lo za=
rci} but that doesn&#39;t seem entirely right either.=A0 <br>
<br>It&#39;s a little disappointing to me that lojban doesn&#39;t have a mo=
re generic form for just plain {imperative} which could have {do} tacked on=
to it (or {mi}, {mi&#39;o}, {da}, etc...) without the need for the clumsy {=
doi mi .i ko klama lo zarci}.=A0 But oh well.=A0 Maybe something to take no=
te of for LoCCan.<br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ivo Doko <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ivo.doko@gmail.com">ivo.doko@gmail.com=
</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border=
-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-lef=
t: 1ex;">
I always thought &quot;let us&quot; (or, more commonly, &quot;let&#39;s&quo=
t;) was a way to<br>
say first-person plural imperative of verbs in English. For example,<br>
&quot;let&#39;s go&quot; - first-person plural imperative of the verb &quot=
;to go&quot;.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>

--000e0cd330a4aa88dc0473172455--