[lojban-beginners] Re: zo .e'e

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Jan 19, 2008 2:17 AM,  <mungojelly@ixkey.info> wrote:
>
> This is how it seems to me at the moment: A bridi expresses a
> relationship between its arguments.  Attaching attitudinals to the
> bridi also orients that bridi relative to the speaker.

That's one way of putting it. I would say that whereas the bridi
provides the propositional content of the utterance, the attitudinal
is used to show what the speaker does with it. Making an assertion,
asserting it, is perhaps the most obvious thing one can do with a
bridi, but of course it is not the only possibility.

> "do klama" is
> a bridi about you going, but the attitudinals give that relationship a
> connection to the speaker and the act of speaking: "do klama za'a"
> makes it explicitly an observation of the world, and "do klama .a'o"
> makes it something the speaker hopes for.  We understand every
> statement to have an implicit relationship with its speaker-- we
> assume there's some reason it's being said-- but the attitudinals make
> the relationship between an expression and its speaker transparent.

Or at least more transparent. "za'a do klama" tells me how the speaker
knows of your going, but not whether they are happy about it. "za'a .ui
do klama" tells me how they know and that they are happy, but not
whether they are surprized, and so on.

> In the .e'X series it seems we're talking about the speaker's attitude
> towards something happening: They give permission for it to happen, or
> request for it to happen, or obligate that it happen.  Does zo .ei
> have less of this sense of being the speaker's decision, and more of a
> general sense that something should/ought/must happen for some reason?

I think the distinguishing feature of the .e'X series is that they involve
a transference (giving/granting/offering/proffering/imposing) that originates
with the speaker and is received or intended to be received by someone,
often the hearer but also possibly the speaker themself or a third party.
{ei} doesn't really have this transferential sense, it shows a more direct
attitude of the speaker towards the state of affairs described by the bridi.
So {ei} fits more with {au} or {a'o}.

> So the speaker is the one who is giving permission, encouraging,
> requesting something, etc.  Is it the addressee they're giving the
> permission (etc) to?  Or is it whoever is doing or would be doing the
> action (the gasnu) or whoever's responsible for the action (the fuzme)?

The latter, which in many cases happens to coincide with the former.

> I think it seems like these are imperative in the sense that they say
> something must or may or should be done, but they don't necessarily
> start to suggest that the adressee ought to be the one to do them,
> until there's at least a "do" in the bridi & probably a "ko".  Is that
> right?

That's how I undersand it, yes. Even if there is a {do}, that doesn't
necessarily make {do} the recepient of the transferential attitude, unless
they are the agent or responsible party. {ko} does turn {do} into the
responsible party.

> > So:
> > e'a: grant permission
>
> Someone wants to do the thing, and the speaker is giving their assent:
> Yes, that is OK with me.
>
> > e'e: give encouragement
>
> Someone is trying to do the thing, and the speaker wants them to do it
> and thinks they can succeed.
>
> > e'i: impose an obligation
>
> The speaker is saying that someone is obligated to do the thing.
>
> > e'o: pose a request
>
> The thing would benefit the speaker, so the speaker is asking someone
> to do it for them.
>
> > e'u: offer a suggestion
>
> The speaker thinks that the thing would be beneficial to someone if
> that person did it, so they're recommending it.
>
> .iepei

ie ja'ai

mu'o mi'e xorxes