[lojban] Re: experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity

[la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

There was a thread on {xa'e} sev. months ago (actually I started it) with someone replying that {.e'i} is the solution.

On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:39:25 PM UTC+4, guskant wrote:
> I would like to propose an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity.
>
> I know an experimental cmavo {xa'e} of LAhE, but it does not satisfy my demand.
> When {xa'e} qualifies sumti with a logical connective, a problem occurs.
>
> 1) xa'e do .onai lo mi speni co'a morsi
> 2) xa'e do lu'u .onai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi
>
> 1) and 2) have different meanings.
> {xa'e} of 1) qualifies {do .onai lo mi speni}. The speaker wants one
> of them to die.
> On the other hand, two {xa'e}s of 2) qualify {do} and {lo mi speni}
> respectively. The speaker's imperativity is separated into two parts
> with {.onai}, and each of them is therefore indefinite.
>
> A problem occurs when I try to transform them.
>
> The imperativity of 2) can be expressed in two sentences connected with ijek:
> 2-1) xa'e do co'a morsi .ijonai xa'e lo mi speni co'a morsi
> while that of 1) cannot.
>
> Why the imperativity of Lojban is so inflexible, while the
> interrogativity of it is quite flexible? I want an imperative cmavo be
> of UI6 like {xu} instead of LAhE.
>
> I propose therefore an experimental cmavo {ko'oi} of UI6 as imperativity.
> With {ko'oi}, the above mentioned sentences 1) and 2) can be expressed
> respectively as follows:
>
> 3) do .onai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi
> 4) do ko'oi .onai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi
>
> and both can be transformed to sentences connected with ijek:
>
> 3-1) do co'a morsi .ijonai ko'oi lo mi speni co'a morsi
> 4-1) do ko'oi co'a morsi .ijonai lo ko'oi mi speni co'a morsi
>
>
> As a basis of this proposition, I was inspired by an opinion of xorxes
> in the following thread:
> https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/f3bc98e058baa736
> Jorge wrote, Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:45:21 EDT
> > What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't
> > have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is
> > not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really
> > belong in a sumti.
> > Consider these:
> >         au do lo plise mi dunda
> >         <wish> You give me an apple.
> >         a'o do lo plise mi dunda
> >         <hope> You give me an apple.
> >         e'o do lo plise mi dunda
> >         <request> You give me an apple.
> >         e'u do lo plise mi dunda
> >         <suggestion> You give me an apple.
> >         e'a do lo plise mi dunda
> >         <permission> You give me an apple.
> >         ei do lo plise mi dunda
> >         <obligation> You give me an apple.
> > They have different forms in normal English: "I wish you would give
> > me an apple", "I hope you give me an apple", "Please, give me an apple",
> > "How about giving me an apple?", "You may give me an apple", "You must
> > give me an apple".
> > Why should "<command> You give me an apple" be special? Just because
> > there is a special tense in English and other languages for that?
> > Of course, {ko} may be useful because it's nice and short, but there
> > wouldn't really be any loss in expressive power without it.
>
> I consent to this opinion. In fact, in my translation work "lo nenri
> be spati denmi", I finally decided to use {e'o} instead of any
> "imperative" word:
>    do .onai .e'o lo mi speni co'a morsi
> http://guskant.github.com/yabu/yabu5.html
>
> However, I think one sometimes cannot easily define one's attitudinal
> of imperativity, {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} or {ei}. I would
> like to express imperativity more easily without wavering between the
> attitudinals. For this purpose, the experimental cmavo {ko'oi} is
> defined as a broader term than {au}, {a'o}, {e'o}, {e'u}, {e'a} and
> {ei}.
>
> Some examples of usage:
>
> ex.1) http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Confessions_(Rousseau)/Livre_VI
> Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on
> disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit: Qu'ils
> mangent de la brioche.
>    ra ko'oi citka lo brioco
> It may be expressed rather with a narrower term:
>    ra .e'u citka lo brioco
>
> ex.2) Puissent vos projets réussir !
>    lo ko'oi se platu be do ku te snada
> With a narrower term:
>    lo .a'o se platu be do ku te snada
> (or possibly {e'o})
>
> ex.3) Que je sois pendu si je mens.
>    mi ko'oi dandu janai jifsku
> With a narrower term:
>    mi .au dandu janai jifsku
> (or possibly {e'u}, {ei})
>
>
> How do you think about {ko'oi}? Any comments will be appreciated.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/TkPb-et4T5sJ.
 
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.