[lojban-beginners] Re: let us

[Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't feel comfortable with using an attitudinal alone for this. For
> instance, what is the meaning of .e'o do pilno le skami or .au do pilno le
> skami ? It sounds to me like the claim that "you use the computer"
> (factually) plus an added implication of some (possibly unspecified) request
> or desire.


No, in Lojban it is possible to do many things with a proposition
other than assert it to be true.  A bridi simply describes a
relationship and the participants in that relationship.  There are
then various explicit claims that you can make as a speaker relative
to each bridi's proposition, such as that it is true (je'u), or that
it is a hypothetical supposition (da'i), or even that it's a joke
(zo'o).  An unmarked statement could be any of these, and indeed in
conversational Lojban you will encounter a variety of unmarked
statements, some of which are factual assertions, some of which are
hypotheticals, and some of which are jokes.

The essential meaning of ".e'o" is that the speaker's relationship to
the proposition is that they request for it to please be made true,
and the essential meaning of ".au" is that the speaker's relationship
to the proposition is that they desire for it to be true.  Since you
are requesting or desiring that the bridi be true, it's naturally
implied that it probably isn't true yet, because why ask for or want
something you already have?  (It is possible, in my experience, to
desire something which is already actual, but it is a rare and complex
emotion.)  I would say that it's not so much grammatically implied, as
semantically implied.  If neither "je'u" (this is true) or "da'i"
(this is hypothetical) is explicitly stated, then the bridi is up in
the air, open to pressure from context.  Because of their meaning,
words like ".e'o" and ".au" (which have been called "irrealis"
attitudiinals) imply that the bridi they mark is likely to be
hypothetical.


> If I am mistaken, what do we need ko for? Is the only the save
> the one slaka of the attitudinal?


Like all sumti, "ko" is never strictly necessary, if it can be
properly implied.  It's helpful in saying a variety of things very
precisely, though.  For instance, in imperative statements the
distinction between "do" and "ko" is used to show a distinction
between telling someone to be in a role passively or actively, such as
"ko do kurji" take care of yourself, vs "do ko kurji" be taken care of
by yourself.  There is an imperative implication to "ko" that makes
additional imperative attitudinals redundant, but "ko" still is often
combined with requesting or desiring (or commanding or angry!)
attitudinals.


> The doi option is logical, however it creates a strange sort of
> self-reference. It means that from now on, do refers to mi'o =
> mi + do !


I don't think it creates a self-reference.  It copies the value, in
programmer speak, not the reference.  It's possible to address just
about anything in Lojban.  For that matter, it's possible to speak on
behalf of just about anything.  You can speak on behalf of one entity,
address a larger entity including who you're speaking for, then begin
speaking on behalf of a different entity while still addressing the
entity that included your earlier self.  (Sometimes that sort of thing
even makes sense!  Poetry and politics come to mind.)

Another way to think about it is that "mi" and "do" are just another
pair of assignable prosumti, just ones with an ordinary conventional
assignment when not given explicit meaning, and also with some special
powers and qualities.  For instance in this case "do" was assigned in
order to make use of the specific imperative mechanism we have with
do/ko.  It can be even more useful to reassign "mi", which allows you
to use the whole attitudinal palette to paint anyone's voice:

mi'e gerku
Speaking for a dog.

.i .ui solri .i .o'u bongu
Yay the sun!  A relaxing bone.

.i .o'o nai le'o mrilu gunka
GRR a mail worker!


> Is there a way to "reset" do so it refers to the "default" listener
> once again? Perhaps if I say just doi ?


There's "da'o", but that's a drastic slate-cleaner: It sends
everything back to its ordinary blankness, all of the prosumti and
letterals and everything.  So probably too strong a medicine for what
you're asking.  (There was once a proposed way to make it just wipe
one prosumti, anyone remember that?)

Just saying "doi" or "doi do" doesn't really do anything.  It would
probably be understood well enough, but then so would saying nothing.
People say "doi ro do" all the time, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't
mean anything either. :)

I would say what you should do is readdress yourself to whoever you
would like to address next.  If you're talking to someone in
particular, it might be polite to just address yourself again to their
name, "doi .djan."  It's also quite ordinary in Lojban to say
something ilke "doi prenu", to some people, or "doi jbopre", to some
Lojbanists, to address yourself to the people around.  I think a
stylish thing to say would be "doi jundi", to those who are paying
attention, which I would take to mean to whoever's listening.  If
speaking out loud, I think "doi tirna", to those who hear a sound, is
a nice one.


mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o