From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 19 06:15:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 13:15:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 72448 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 13:15:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 13:15:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 13:15:04 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.17a.d3e3a0c (3980) for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:14:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <17a.d3e3a0c.2a924947@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:14:47 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] .uanai ne'i le velcli To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_17a.d3e3a0c.2a924947_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_17a.d3e3a0c.2a924947_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 5:49:13 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > .i.oi mi cortu le stedu > >> u'u << > I am unsure about the force of {ei} buried under several subordinators; > I suspect that {mi bilga le nu} is meant, but seems inappropriate > without a lot of detail: what standard is involved (I planned to, I > promised to, I am legally bound to, ...; this looks like merely "I > planned to." in which case, forgetting covers all the obligation > involved -- you can't forget to do -- I take it that {lenu in this > sense is OK --what isn't on the list). >> The question is, first, whether one is here *expressing* an obligation or merely *reporting* that one has (or had) one. I think that {ei} only expresses and that this case is too deeply buried to be an expression, hence the need to state the obligation openly. Secondly, the question is whether there is really an obligation here that needs to be reported even. In the context, I think the fact that it is something I forgot to do is sufficient to implicate that it was something that I had a (very weak) obligation to do, and so neither the {ei} nor the {mi bilga ...} is needed. --part1_17a.d3e3a0c.2a924947_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 5:49:13 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

.i.oi mi cortu le stedu

>>
u'u
<<
> I am unsure about the force of {ei} buried under several subordinators;
> I suspect that {mi bilga le nu} is meant, but seems inappropriate
> without a lot of detail: what standard is involved (I planned to, I
> promised to, I am legally bound to, ...; this looks like merely "I
> planned to." in which case, forgetting covers all the obligation
> involved -- you can't forget to do -- I take it that {lenu in this
> sense is OK --what isn't on the list).
>>

The question is, first, whether one is here *expressing* an obligation or merely *reporting* that one has (or had) one. I think that {ei} only expresses and that this case is too deeply buried to be an expression, hence the need to state the obligation openly. Secondly, the question is whether there is really an obligation here that needs to be reported even. In the context, I think the fact that it is something I forgot to do is sufficient to implicate that it was something that I had a (very weak) obligation to do, and so neither the {ei} nor the {mi bilga ...} is needed.
--part1_17a.d3e3a0c.2a924947_boundary--