From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Apr 22 17:08:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 23 Apr 2001 00:08:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 70571 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2001 00:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Apr 2001 00:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Apr 2001 00:08:54 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (25.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.25]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3N08pT45991 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010422195744.00bd6840@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:12:27 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] conditionals in Lojban In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:40 PM 04/22/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: >(BTW, Lojban does not even have >a clear gismu for "x1 expresses attitude x2", maybe {jarco}?) Not a gismu, but an obvious tanru/lujvo: cinmo cusku or cinmo jarco As for the converse, it may be true that we sometimes use >some attitudinals to make assertions. There seem to be two >resons for this. On the one hand, some attitudinals are not >so useful to express attitudes. I can understand what a bare >{oi} means, or a bare {ui}, or a bare {u'i}, and those are >always used attitudinally, but when would you express an >attitude of obligation, for example? What does a bare {ei} >indicate? That expression I get on my face when Nora or Shawn tells me to go do the Lojban taxes. Usually in English it is accompanied by a groan, or in Lojban with an .oi, but it needn't be. When I was younger I would often do things solely from a sense of obligation, and not necessarily with a feeling of complaint. >Or a bare {ai}? .ai.au.ai.au mi gunka klama vau cu'u loi ze toryre'a This one I often use at the same time I need to use a bare ".ei". In English, I say "I will". >On the other hand, there is no corresponding gismu to do the job. Not a gismu, because there is a tense component to intent. mi ba gasnu conveys intent. >{bilga} has a >much more restricted field of application than {ei}, >and I can't get any meaning out of {ei do klama le zarci} >other than "you should go to the market". I'm not sure I get any sense out of ei unless the speaker has a sumti or modal role in the bridi. >{ei} to me means >something like "in an ideal world, this happens". > > >1' ko'a pu bilga le nu zukte > >Is that "he had to do it" or "he should have done it"? What is the difference? The only other meaning I can associate with the former is one based on se bapli instead of bilga. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org