From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 18 13:34:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 18 Jun 2001 20:34:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 46774 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2001 20:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jun 2001 20:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Jun 2001 20:31:41 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15C5gM-0003FC-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:31:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:31:34 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] kona, but not the coffee Message-ID: <20010618133134.V14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <108.1616e21.285e27b4@aol.com> <20010617122640.C5918@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010617122640.C5918@twcny.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:26:40PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:33:08AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > One way to mark > > directives in Lojban is to use {ko} ({e'o} and {e'u} also work). > > One thing that distresses me is to see {e'o} and {e'u} used in place of {ko} > just because {ko} seems too "harsh". I think that that is a cultural effect > that we are letting creep into Lojban. Not in my use of lojban, I assure you. The book explicitely states that imperatives need not me imperious, and I try to keep that in mind. -Robin "zo'o ko ko malgletu" Powell -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/