From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 17 08:33:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 17 Jun 2001 15:33:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 74547 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2001 15:33:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jun 2001 15:33:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2001 15:33:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.108.1616e21 (4444) for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <108.1616e21.285e27b4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:08 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] kona, but not the coffee To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_108.1616e21.285e27b4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_108.1616e21.285e27b4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/17/2001 5:11:13 AM Central Daylight Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > when you say "ko na bacru", are you saying "shut up", or just > saying "it is not true that i am asking you to utter"? what it be > any different for the prenex version (na ku zo'u ko bacru)? > > i think it should be the latter. then to say shut up, just use ko > na'e bacru. > And the poison spreads! If you say {ko ...} you are not making a claim but issuing a command (a directive, with whatever powerplay additions you can manage). So, in particular you are not saying "I am asking you to...;" that would a bridi whose agent term is {mi}. Nor does the position of the {na} make any difference -- the sentence remains a directive. There a dozens of uses of bridi, most of them fairly clearly marked in Lojban. One way to mark directives in Lojban is to use {ko} ({e'o} and {e'u} also work). Directive language is inherently not assertive, it makes no claim. It does presuppose that what is being directed to occur is not known to be occurring at the moment. --part1_108.1616e21.285e27b4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/17/2001 5:11:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
thinkit8@lycos.com writes:



when you say "ko na bacru", are you saying "shut up", or just
saying "it is not true that i am asking you to utter"?  what it be
any different for the prenex version (na ku zo'u ko bacru)?

i think it should be the latter.  then to say shut up, just use ko
na'e bacru.




And the poison spreads! If you say {ko ...} you are not making a claim but
issuing a command (a directive, with whatever powerplay additions you can
manage).  So, in particular you are not saying "I am asking you to...;"  that
would a bridi whose agent term is {mi}.  Nor does the position of the {na}
make any difference -- the sentence remains a directive.  There a dozens of
uses of bridi, most of them fairly clearly marked in Lojban.  One way to mark
directives in Lojban is to use {ko} ({e'o} and {e'u} also work).  Directive
language is inherently not assertive, it makes no claim.  It does presuppose
that what is being directed to occur is not known to be occurring at the
moment. --part1_108.1616e21.285e27b4_boundary--