Re: [lojban] Uses of Language

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> Any further suggestions (or suggested eliminations, repositionings,
> collapsing, etc.)?

Consider these three sentences:

1) ma ti gasnu
  Who did this?

2) ko mi jungau le du'u makau ti gasnu
  Tell me who did this!

3) mi djica le nu do mi jungau le du'u makau ti gasnu
 [mi djica le nu kokau mi jungau le du'u makau ti gasnu]
  I want you to tell me who did this.

On the surface, (1) is a question, (2) is a command and (3) is
an assertion, but their _use_ is, leaving aside nuances of tone,
basically the same. I would say they have the same function
but different form. Before we do classifications of function,
I think we should concentrate on the classifications of form.
Form and function are not isomorphic in Lojban any more than
in any other language, even though probably someone at some point
claimed that they were or should be.

Question forms in Lojban are probably the easiest to identify,
they are all and only those forms that contain one of the
(unkaued) question words: ma, mo, xu, xo, pei, ji, etc.
They are ususally used to ask questions, but nobody can stop
you from using them for other functions: "would you be kind enough
to pass me the salt?" is a question in form but not in function,
and it would be natural enough to replicate in Lojban. And of
course nobody can stop you from using other forms for the function
normally fullfilled by questions, as in (2) and (3) above.

Directive forms are of course all those containing {ko}, but
also, I would say, those marked with e'o, e'u, ei, e'a, also e'e
in my use, and perhaps e'i. I am also tempted to make this a
larger category (volitive?) encompassing a'o, au, ai, a'i (understood
as "trying"). These are all indicators of a situation that may or may
not realize, and with which the speaker is concerned. The listener
is often a priviledged actor in the case of the e-series, thus
the special {ko} form.

It is clear that {da'i} corresponds to the speculative form, but
I'm not quite sure yet how to handle what follows from the
speculation (English "would"). For example:

Suppose you were here. I am here. We would both be here!

The first sentence is marked with {da'i}, the second is a normal
assertion. How do we mark the third? It is not another {da'i}, for
it is not a new assumption, but it shouldn't either be confused
with a normal assertion. Some combination of {da'i} with something
else? Pity {da'ibi'unai} is so long. Perhaps {da'ibi'u} for
"were" and plain {da'i} for "would"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes








_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.