From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri May 04 17:32:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 5 May 2001 00:32:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 51994 invoked from network); 5 May 2001 00:32:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 May 2001 00:32:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.38) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 May 2001 00:32:07 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:32:07 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.49 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 May 2001 00:32:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.49] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] ko kau? Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:32:07 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2001 00:32:07.0778 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0E25420:01C0D4FA] From: "Jorge Llambias" la robyspir cusku di'e >I know I'm not the first to come up with strange new places to put {kau}, >but >could this at all apply to {ko} to make a command locally without making >the >entire sentence a command? I'm sure that if there is an application for {kau} in addition to indirect questions, it has to be with {ko} for "indirect imperatives", but I don't think it is exactly what you're describing. {kau} is not just making the question locally. It replaces the question with the true answer, without actually saying what the true answer is. The parallel use with {ko} should be that it replaces the command with the true outcome (i.e. the fulfillment of the command) without actually saying that it is fulfilled. It is a form of subjunctive: ko klama le zarci Go to the market! mi djica le nu kokau klama le zarci I want that you go to the market. (The true outcome of the command "go to the market!" is what I want.) Of course, today we would simply say {mi djica le nu do klama le zarci}, even though there may be no such event. We treat events differently than other objects. Unfortunately this would not be a complete solution for the subjunctive because we only have a second person imperative pronoun, and this should work for all persons: la djan cu stidi le nu e'ukau mi klama le zarci John suggested that I go to the market. John's direct speech would have been: {e'u la xorxes klama le zarci}. >To keep using the worn-out example: {kokau nicygau ledo klama .ijo >[nu'edo'u] >mi curmi lenu do klama le panka} Just as indirect questions work only in subclauses, I think the same would be true of indirect commands. >Clean your room and* I'll let you go to the park. > >* (This is using an illogical English sense of "and", of course.) I don't think it's that illogical. Let's make a deal: You do this and I'll do that. The deal certainly involves "and". The illogicality comes from viewing it as a statement instead of as a proposal. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.