Re: [bpfk] {e'i} in usage and in the wiki

2014-11-22 16:43 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

How can "I have to go" and "I should go" be subtle? Their difference is very important.
Why losing it?

Which difference do you think is being lost?

.e'i is part of a series of illocutionaries e'a/e'e/e'i/e'o/e'u with the speaker's attitude towards an action to be performed (typically but not necessarily) by someone else:

.e'a: I hereby grant permission for this to take place:
.e'e: I hereby give encouragement for this to take place:
.e'i: I hereby impart instructions for this to take place: (or to use "constraint": I hereby impose a constraint for this to take place:)
.e'o: I hereby pose a request for this to take place:
.e'u: I hereby make a suggestion for this to take place:

.ei is used to express how one feels the world ought to be:

.ei: It ought to be the case that this takes place:

But that's how BPFK pages repurposed ei and e'i.

Usage tells that:

ei mi cliva - conventions/rules dictate that I leave.

e'i mi cliva - the situation forces me to leave.

ei is a UI for {sei mi te javni}.

e'i is a UI for {sei mi bilga}.

So my question is why e'i was moved from {ei} group into {e'V} group turning it into kinda imperative marker.

So we have:

.ei mi cliva
It ought to be the case that I leave.
I ought to leave.
I should leave.

.e'i mi cliva
I hereby impart instructions that I leave.
(Direct first person singular imperative not available in English, but "e'i mi'o cliva" "Let's leave".)

[ju'a] mi bilga lo ka cliva
[I assert that] I am under the obligation of leaving.
I have to leave.

There are circumstances when all three can be felicitously used, even though their precise meanings are somewhat different.

Examples with "mi" as the agent are not always the best to show how UIs work, because it makes it harder to disentangle the effect on "mi" as the speaker from the effect on "mi" as the agent. With "do" we have:

.ei do cliva
It ought to be the case that you leave.
You ought to leave.
You should leave. (But not because I say so.)
It's best if you leave.

.e'i do cliva
I hereby impart instructions that you leave.
You should leave. (Because I say so. An instruction.)
Leave.

[ju'a] do bilga lo ka cliva
[I assert that] You are under the obligation of leaving.
You have to leave. (A statement, not an instruction.)

With a third person:

.ei la .alis. cu cliva
It ought to be the case that Alice leaves.
Alice ought to leave.
Alice should leave. (But not because I say so.)
It's best if Alice leaves.

.e'i la .alis. cu cliva
I hereby impart instructions that Alice leaves.
Alice should leave. (Because I say so. An instruction.)
(Let Alice leave.)

[ju'a] la .alis. cu bilga lo ka cliva
[I assert that] Alice is under the obligation of leaving.
Alice has to leave. (A statement, not an instruction.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.