[lojban-beginners] Re: let us

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2009/9/9 Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>:
> Now that I think about it, how can one command ones self to do something?
> One can express intention, determination to do a thing, or desire (all of
> which are expressible through attitudinals), but what would it mean to
> express the imperative {ko} to ones self?

In that case, one's self is objectified and made a listener, to which
the *usual* deictic class of {ko} (the listener) will refer.

> Furthermore, {do} means "the listener" not necessarily "you over there". So
> could {ko klama} mean "let's go" if context makes sense that I'm talking
> about "us"? For instance: {mi'o nitcu lo ka zvati vu .i ko klama}.

I think that could be the case.

> Given this context, couldn't {ko klama} mean what we typically mean when we say
> "let's go"?

One obvious problem would then be that {ko} itself doesn't specify
which deictic class (speaker/listener/other) it is referring to in a
given instance. So we would have to expect some either contextual or
verbal setting for the reference if we are to avoid ambiguity. For the
verbal solution, we might use GOI such as {po'u} or, as Selckiku
mentioned, {doi}:

 ko po'u mi'o klama
 ko doi mi'o klama

I also happen to think we should be able to express every conceivable
type of {ko} by combining any sumti with {pe'u}:

 (me & you) Let's go! --> mi'o pe'u klama
 (you) Go! --> do pe'u klama
 (me) Go! --> mi pe'u klama
 (y'all and the ship and that small swimming thing) Be destroyed! -->
daspo fu'e pe'u do'o joi lo bloti joi lo ca'o cmalu je limna fu'o

Apparently the last one is wordy, but that's what i can imagine as one
way of disambiguating the target of an imperative expression. And of
course extra attitudinals would be available to further specify the
sense of the expression:

 e'a, e'e, e'i, e'o, e'u, ei ...