Re: [lojban] Re: Imperative mi'o?

2014-04-24 19:42 GMT+04:00 .neit. <kosmikconundrum@gmail.com>:

So I gather the following summary in answer (in no particular order):

1) Specify to whom {ko} refers in the same way you would specify to whom {do} refers - using {doi} and it's vocative family

2) Logically connect the sumti {mi .e ko klama}

I dont think 2) is correct at all. It states that I go, no command towards me is present.

.ieru'e je'a gendra gi'u smudra

3) Use the experimental {ko'oi} such that {zo ko du lu do ko'oi li'u}

4) Assign {ko} as though it were an assignable sumka'i using {goi}

mi ckire fo lo rodo sidju

na gendra. To nitpick, you wanted {fi}, and I think you dropped a {nu}.

I tend to prefer #1. I don't recall reading that {ko} works as an assignable sumka'i, so I hesitate to use 4).

Searching at alexburka.com/~danr I find 5 uses of {ko goi}, all on IRC, but 2 of them are nonsense and the other 3 are queries to the parser-bot. There are 4 results for {goi ko}, all of which are real sentences, for example {lo gerku goi ko bajra}. So, the usage parses, and was said at least once on the Internet, but yes it's a strange and rare production. Probably {doi gerku ko bajra} is more readily understood (and shorter!).

I'm still learning the language, and I'm teaching my wife and 4 and 7 year-old sons,

so as a personal preference I'm avoiding the use of experimental valsi until we all have a better command of the language, so 3)'s out. Logical connection looks like a good solution and adds the flexability of connectives to imperatives {ko .u mi nitcu klama caku} (heh. ma xe fanva zoi .gy. save yourself! .gy. la lojban).

{.iicai ko nurxru ko}

Similarly, assigning {ko} like you would {do} seems similarly flexible.

I'll go with 1) and 2), and perhaps expand to 3) later.

Thanks again for your answers!

mi'e .neit. mu'o

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:37:48 PM UTC-4, .neit. wrote:

Say you were at a dinner with some Lojbanic friends. You and your significant other must leave early for whatever reason. You want to look at him/her and say "mi'o klama" so that all listening know that you mean just yourself and your partner. But at the same time, you want it to come across as an imperative "ko klama".

How would you handle this? mi'oko? Can you make personal sumka'i other than "do" imperative? (eg: do'oko, ma'ako etc?)

Or would you just decide that it's foolish to take the imperative with your significant other and instead say ".e'o mi'o klama"?

.i'o ki'e rodo

mu'o mi'e neit

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/jozM2T1ozaY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.