imperatives

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

>The subjunctive in Spanish is used only for subordinate clauses.  I'm
>not sure, but that seems to be what its etymology is.  The other moods
>in Spanish are indicative, imperative and conditional.  The indicative
>is used for claims.  The imperative for commands, requests, suggestions,
>encouragements, dares, anything that requires the listener to perform an
>action.  The conditional is for counterfactuals, and it is the hardest
>one to put into Lojban.

If I understand my dictionary, but I think the word "subjunctive mood"
in English is used for what you call "counterfactuals".  "Conditional"
is specific to clauses using the word "if" and doesn't seem to be a
"mood" as opposed to a kind of clause.  "Moods" in English grammar
terminology refer to distinctions made in verbs that convey speaker
attitude.

Clearly this grammar terminology stuff can be a real hassle if the terms
don't mean the same thing in different languages.

>I believe {ko} is used for all those imperative functions as well.
>Examples are the slogan {e'osai ko sarji la lojban} and your translation
>of the Lord's prayer, where I suppose you meant the {ko}s as requests,
>not commands.  ("Please give us our daily bread", and not "I command you
>to give us our daily bread".)

I think it appropriate for "e'osai ko sarji".  Given this discussion, I
think my use of imperative in the Lord's Prayer may be inappropriate
unless so heavily modified by attitudes that it comes across as "I am
not worthy or justified to be doing this but I tell you anyway to give
me bread because of my need". (Can't remember if I did this).

The primary justification for imperative in the Lord's Prayer, is that
we are requesting a specific action of the Listener to implement our
"request".  Without an imperative, we allow the possibility that someone
else could take action instead of God to make the statement true.  Since
we really aren't asking in the Prayer for God to directly do the giving
(i.e like manna), instead of perhaps enabling or allowing some other
source to provide the food, an imperative could be taken as not only
haughty but a bit too specific on what we want God to do and not do.

>> If I am correct that attitudinals are independent of traditional mood,
>> then I think we are arguing in a realm that is not discussible using
>> traditional jargon.
>
>I think some attitudinals are very much related to traditional mood, but
>others have nothing to do with it.

Having checked the definition of "mood", all attitudinals are my
definition expressions of "mood" - they just don't all conform to
distinct moods in the English or Latinate languages.

>I think the following make the sentence not a claim:
>.a'o           hope
>.ai            intent
>.au            desire

Well, they usually will be counterfactual, but not necessarily.  Whether
they are a non-claim is a little harder.

>.ii            fear
>
>(I'm not sur about {ii}, is it fear that something might be true, or
>fear because it is true?)

Like the previous 3, I think it is orthogonal to truth - we can fear the
truth or fear a counterfactual situation.

>.e'a           permission
>.e'o           request
>.e'u           suggestion
>.ei            obligation
>
>Of those, {e'a}, {e'o}, {e'u} and {ei} would correspond to the
>imperative in Spanish.

Whereas they can be claims of truth of counterfactuals in Lojban.

".e'a do tcidu ti" cannot be a counterfactual since the reader won't
know I wrote it unless he makes it true.

But I agree that they may usually be covered by the Spanish imperative,
or even the English.

>I don't understand {e'e} and {e'i}.

".e'i mi klama le briju"
"I'm compelled to go to the office; I have no other choice."

".e'e mi klama le gusta" "*Of course* I am capable of going to the
restaurant.  What do you think I am?"

>>It would be nice if they were some kind of imperative as well,
>>so that all the eV would be there. I think there should be one
>>for "encouragement". What does {e'e} mean? Couldn't it be
>>glossed as "encouragement"? And it would be nice if {e'i} was
>>"dare", but then its scale would have to be reversed.

".i'e" combined with many other attitudinals form varieties of
encouragement for states that are not yet achieved, or which are
temporarily but noty neceessarily permanently so.

".e'inai" conveys one kind of daring.  There are also others that can
convey it. (e.g. .ai.ii)

We once tried to make all the attitudinals work like you suggest, but it
wasn't that effective - too many exceptions and too much metaphysics,
and too little usage that fit the formal specs.  The attitudinal
revision represented the end of the era of this kind of systematicity,
in favor of the current different kind.

>> Properly speaking, you probably want the attitudinal attached after the
>> pro-sumti to clearly get the effedct you are seeking.  On the whole
>> sentence, it is not necessarily unambiguous whether "e'o" is 2nd person
>> or 3rd person request - (e'o la djan cu klama mi'o) does not seem to me
>> imperative to mi'o in the way that mi'o goi ko would be.
>
>Well, imperatives only make sense when directed to agents.  {la djan
>klama ko} can only make sense if interpreted as {ko klagau la djan do}.

Imperatives need not be agentive.  They can also be a directive to be
non-agentive in thwarting an action, or even passive in allowing an
event that will naturally take its course.

But is "e'o la djan cu klama mi'o" imperative to John or to mi'o? if
John is in the 3rd person?  In short, this can be rendered as "Please
let John come to US (rather than us to him?)" or as "Please, JOHN will
come here (not George)" or "Please remain with me for John to come to
us." or "Please let's wait for John to join us."  All that is conveyed
is that John is going to do the coming as opposed to someone else, and
your request can be directed implicitly or explicitly at a variety of
people which may or may not include John in the audience.

e'o at the sentence level does not necessarily focus on any one sumti in
the way that "ko" does.  "e'o" attached to a particular sumti could
perhaps be taken imperatively if the sumti in question were in the
audience and had volition or agentive powers.

Put another way, .e'o in sentence initial position should have identical
effect on a SE conversion of the bridi.

>> "ei" to me is
>> even more ambiguous in this way (.ei le karce cu bevri zo'e mi'o),
>
>Here it is hard seeing the car as having an obligation, unless it is one
>of those talking cars they show on TV.  If it's one of those, then since
>the car is the agent, I would say it is its obligation.  Otherwise, it
>would be us that somehow have the obligation to receive whatever the car
>is supposed to carry to us, but it would be strange.

.ei is likewise not necessarily an obligation on the part of any
particular sumti to fulfill its role, but a reflection of the speakers
attitude that the relationship is obligatory.  I read it as "This is the
way it must be."  Perhaps even "Amen".  .ei even more than others seems
to make a lot of sense in talking about a definitely factual condition.

".ei la nik. gunka le {thesis}" is an expression that I recognize that
Nick is obliged to be working on his thesis AS HE IS rather than joining
in our merry debates.  I may have a mixed degree of acceptance of this
necessary evil %^), and I certainly don't "approve" of it when it causes
us to miss his valuable insights.  But I can recognize that his
thesis-writing is the way the world SHOULD BE whether I want it, approve
of it, or accept it.  Indeed if ".ei" expresses any imperative, it is to
myself to not interfere in that obligation, much as I would like to bug
Nick to death on some issues he may have valuable insights on.

%^) (especially if Nick is actually looking on on us at the moment)

>> and
>> "e'u" can also become real tricky (e'u la djan bevri zo'e mi'o, in
>> response to a description of a problem djan is facing that happens to
>> involve us - is this imperative to us, or to djan?)
>
>To djan, the agent.

Why is John necessarily the agent?  In English carrying is always
active, but it needn't be in Lojban.

And how is this be imperative to John if he isn't around to hear it?

What is I am merely suggesting to you the listener, that zo'e will get
here because John is carrying it and that we therefore need take no
action ("John will bring it; we don't need to do anything), or that I
think it useful idea to consider having John do the carrying as an
alternative to other proposals that have been or will be specified (...
Or maybe - why can't John bring it to us?).

The attitudinals are all very much expressing the speaker's attitude and
world view and need not have any binding effect on anyone else.  (Thus
all attitudinals have some potential non-indicative usage, such as when
they refer to a counterfactual/hypothetical event that the speaker is
contemplating but not necessarily expecting.)

"ko" is very much expressing authoritative intent of agentive behavior
or, umm, active non-interference, on the part of the listener filling
the indicated role.  It IS binding on the referent of "ko", or at least
has the intent to bind.

lojbab