Subject: RE: [lojban] 1st Person Imperative

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 18:35:38 -0400

>> 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: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 18:35:38 -0400