From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Sat Mar 15 20:44:15 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 16 Mar 2003 04:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 60027 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 04:44:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Mar 2003 04:44:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.162) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 04:44:14 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17354.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.214]) by mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G4iDR15384 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:44:13 +1100 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:44:13 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Imperative connectives To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis (John, you'll need to answer this first.) This is a question that has come up in the Level 0 material, which I am now finalising. I am asking it here, rather than on jboske (because it is supplicative --- clarification requested from John, who wrote the piece in question --- and presumably an already settled issue) or in private email (because I want the answer on record.) The question is, what is the proper interpretation of logical connectives within imperatives. The current text is: > How can Lojban logical connectives be used in imperative sentences? > Logical connectives work properly only on complete sentences, and of > those, only those which actually assert something. > > There is a special imperative pronoun > ko. This is a second > person pronoun logically equivalent to lang="art-lojban">do, the normal Lojban word for role="gloss">you, but > conveying an imperative sense. Thus, an imperative can be understood as > commanding the listener to make the assertion true which results when > ko is replaced by > do. > > For example, ko > sisti (Stop!) is logically > equivalent to do sisti > (you stop), and pragmatically may be > understood > as Make do > sisti true!. This allows logical > connection to be > used in imperatives without loss of clarity or generality; the logical > connection applies to the assertion which is in effect embedded in the > imperative. By way of clarification, I wish to add: > So ko > sisti .inaja mi ceclygau would seem to mean > Stop or I'll > shoot, but actually means bring about a situation > whereby, > if you don't stop, I'll shoot — not quite the same > thing. The sense > of stop or I'll shoot is properly conveyed by the > phrase .i lenu do na sisti .e'u cu > rinka lenu mi > ceclygau — similar to what we saw above. Is this a misunderstanding? And if so, what *is* the Lojban for "Stop or I'll shoot"? ### Momenton senpretende paseman mi retenis kaj # Dr NICK NICHOLAS. kultis kvazaux # French & Italian, senhorlogxan elizeon # Univ. of Melbourne (Dume: # nickn@unimelb.edu.au [Victor Sadler, _Memkritiko_ 90] # http://www.opoudjis.net