| Sorry about this, but I seem to get stuff all out of order: originals
longafter comments, for one annoying example. In a message dated 6/17/2001 7:04:20 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: i mi puzu stidi le du'u to ji'a ba'anai ro spuda po'u la xorxes po'o But 1) {ko} is specific to imperative mode: its primary use is exactly coextensive with that mode. 2) the referent of {ko} defaults to that of {do} but {ko} is assignable, as we learned in an earlier thread, to any nameable group or object I'm not sure I follow the rest: how does {ko} fit talking about the topic of conversation only? <Subj: [lojban] Re: kona, but not the coffee Date: 6/17/2001 7:04:20 PM Central Daylight Time From: araizen@newmail.net (Adam Raizen) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com la rab spir cusku di'e > On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:33:08AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > One way to mark > > directives in Lojban is to use {ko} ({e'o} and {e'u} also work). > > One thing that distresses me is to see {e'o} and {e'u} used in place of {ko} > just because {ko} seems too "harsh".> {e'u} and {e'o} seem to have different (but not clear how) functions from imperatives, but functioons that can be *combined with* imperatives to "soften" them. That whole range of directive language needs analysis, but I think it has to wait until there is some clear Lojban usage to analyze -- English is clearly NOT going to help here. |