From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue May 06 15:39:33 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 6 May 2003 22:39:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 96180 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 22:35:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2003 22:35:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 22:35:26 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.60] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A8B64FD30076; Tue, 06 May 2003 18:35:34 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] 1st Person Imperative Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 18:35:38 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030506211256.82730.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.60] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> The meaning of ko is different from that of an e'o >> or e'u construction, and has no analogue for first person. >We agree that {ko} has no analogue for first person. The only way >to use it to refer to the first person is to meke the first person >coincide with the second (i.e. talking to yourself). But there is >almost no difference between {e'osai ko sarji la lojban} and >{e'osai do sarji la lojban}. In that sense e-cmavo cover the >meaning of {ko}. There is *almost* no difference in meaning. e'osai do sarji la lojban would be less of a command than the ko version. >That was my point. Most utterances that correspond to imperatives can >be translated with an e-cmavo. I'm not sure why you object to calling >e-cmavo "imperatives". e-cmavo in general set the mood of the utterance >to imperative. The "imperative mood" includes commands, requests, >exhortations, etc. I object because the meaining is not the "please do this" conveyed by an imperative in natlangs but a statement that it is (or, in this case, ca'a would not be default, so it could be) the case, coupled with a feeling of pleading. From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue May 06 15:39:33 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 6 May 2003 22:39:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 96180 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 22:35:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2003 22:35:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 22:35:26 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.60] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A8B64FD30076; Tue, 06 May 2003 18:35:34 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] 1st Person Imperative Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 18:35:38 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030506211256.82730.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.60] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> The meaning of ko is different from that of an e'o >> or e'u construction, and has no analogue for first person. >We agree that {ko} has no analogue for first person. The only way >to use it to refer to the first person is to meke the first person >coincide with the second (i.e. talking to yourself). But there is >almost no difference between {e'osai ko sarji la lojban} and >{e'osai do sarji la lojban}. In that sense e-cmavo cover the >meaning of {ko}. There is *almost* no difference in meaning. e'osai do sarji la lojban would be less of a command than the ko version. >That was my point. Most utterances that correspond to imperatives can >be translated with an e-cmavo. I'm not sure why you object to calling >e-cmavo "imperatives". e-cmavo in general set the mood of the utterance >to imperative. The "imperative mood" includes commands, requests, >exhortations, etc. I object because the meaining is not the "please do this" conveyed by an imperative in natlangs but a statement that it is (or, in this case, ca'a would not be default, so it could be) the case, coupled with a feeling of pleading.