Re: Pro-sumti/pro-bridi paper, draft 1.1

[cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan)]

la mark. clsn. cusku di'e

> I think you should stress a little more that "we" can also be translated to
> Lojban {mi}.

Done.

> Someday we'll have to play with some really baroque uses of {ko}; maybe put
> some in.  A language that allows the imperativity of a sentence to be
> expressed way down deep in a sentence has got to be interesting (e.g. {mi
> viska le nanmu poi prami ko}: "be such that I see the man that loves you!",
> not quite a translation of "show me the man that loves you", but a slightly
> different command).

Done.

> Also recall the discussion we had way back when about
> {mi cusku ledu'u ko sidju mi}, which had been used as "I ask you to help
> me" when it really should translate to "Be such that I ask you to help me,"
> or "make me ask you for help", to put it colloquially.  That should be
> mentioned.

I don't remember this discussion, and it brings up a disturbing consideration.
I agree that "mi cusku le du'u ko sidju mi" means "Make me ask you for help",
but then what >is< the translation of "I ask you to help me"?  It looks like
we have a distinction between direct and indirect commands to parallel the
one between direct and indirect questions.  And if questions and commands,
why not any UI?  Seems like the whole vexed question may need some rethinking.

[Welsh material omitted]

Private inquiry:  just what do all those Welsh vowels mean?  I don't have
access to a decent (read IPA) description of them.  Are there really 7
vowel phonemes?

> Do you mean to say that in 16th century English "this" referred to medium
> distance and "yon" was far away, or that "that" was medium distance and
> "yon" was far away?  You say the former, which doesn't make much sense, but
> I don't know.

"this" of course should have been "that".  Woops.  Note the parallelism:
this:that:yon::here:there:yonder.  Latin had the same pattern:  hic:iste:ille,
which are sometimes even called 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person demonstratives
because of the associations with near-speaker:near-listener:neither.

> >Most references in speech are to the past (what has already been said),
> >and so "di'e", "de'e", and "da'e" are more useful in writing:
> 
> But "di'e" is a future reference!  I know that "di'e" is indeed useful in
> writing, but the sentence appears to contradict itself.

It doesn't, but it's poorly worded.  I've expanded it.

> >6.15)   na nei
> >
> >and how does it differ from
> >
> >6.16)   dei jitfa
> >        This-utterance is-false?
> 
> OK, I give up.  Put an answer-key at the bottom!

It's Evil, Truly Evil, and you should try to work out its meaning for
yourselves.  Further deponent sayeth not.

> Also mention constructions like {vo'apedi'u} as alternatives to {lego'i}.

Not I.  As I said to lojbab regarding the "re pai" controversy, I will not
use these papers to document what I believe to be the Wrong Thing.  If
people say "re pai" for 2*pi, or "vo'a pe di'u" for "le go'i ku", the
language will not break, but I won't defend the usage in cold print.
To me, "vo'a pe di'u" means "that part of the x1 sumti of the current
bridi which pertains in some way to the previous sentence".

> Colin recently saw me on IRC and asked "do mo", which I took as a question
> "who are you?" and not "how are you?"  I guess "ma poi prenu du do" or
> something would be better for "who are you"?

I think the best way to say "Who are you?" is either with a straight predication

	ma cmene do

or more cleverly with a vocative question:

	doi ma

Note:  I have added two sections to the end:  KOhA by series, and GOhA/brodV
by series.

-- 
John Cowan	cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban.