Re: [lojban] Re: {bapli} and agentive compulsion

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- "Adam D. Lopresto" <adam@pubcrawler.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Adam COOPER wrote:
> 
> >I've got an example sentence: "Ben forces Sean
> to leave."
> >To express simple agentive compulsion using
> bapli (x1 [force] (ka)
> >forces/compels event x2 to occur; x1
> determines property x2 to manifest) is
> >it best to
> 
> >   1. be true to the definition along the
> lines of { lo ka la ben kakne
> >   cu bapli lo nu la con cliva }
> >   2. cheat along the lines of { la ben bapli
> lo nu la con cliva }
> >   3. something else I'm overlooking ?
> 
> I'd suggest {.i la ben jai bapli lo nu la con
> cliva}.  This seems like exactly
> the reason that {jai} exists.

This is better than {tu'a} in that it makes a new
predicate for agentive causation (which ought to
have been in the list anyhow).  On the other
hand, it could be argued that it is not Ben per
se that forces the event, but something Ben does.
 Whichever.
 
> On a side note, "Sean", as I pronounce it at
> least, is closer to {can} than
> {con}.

Ongoing problem.  The original /o/ was the lower
version, like the /aw/ in "law" in received
pronunciation.  Unfortunately, that has slipped
for many speakers to the usual /a/.  So, /o/ has
now been moved up to the /o/ in "so."  The old
/o/ is just about perfect for "Sean," whose vowel
lies about halfway between new /o/ and /a/
(though actually nearer to /o/).

xorxes wrote:

>>cheat along the lines of { la ben bapli lo nu
la con cliva }
>
>That's how I would say it. If that is cheating,
then Lojban >can't be spoken without cheating.

While Ben is technically an event, accurate
speaking is probably better served by the {jai}
or {tu'a} approach.  Of course, the slightly
shorter version will be understood; it will just
be harder to expound semantically.  Not using it
will certainly not render Lojban unspeakable however.