Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: kona, but not the coffee

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:45:17 EDT

Sorry about this, but I seem to get stuff all out of order: originals 
longafter comments, for one annoying example.
In a message dated 6/17/2001 7:04:20 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> i mi puzu stidi le du'u to ji'a ba'anai ro spuda po'u la xorxes po'o
> pe'i cu tugni mi toi zo ko sinxa la'e zo do poi se tcita lo selcni
> valsi to ra'u lei valsi poi me'o ebu cu pamoi lerfu toi noi so'iroi
> na'e se cusku i pe'i filseljmirai fa le du'u cusku le selcni valsi uke
> zo do jikau zo ko i le nu pilno le selcni valsi cu sucta i mapti le nu
> tavla fi le tavla to zo mi e zo mi'o toi e le selta'a to zo do e zo ko
> toi e le nalsnu to zo ko'a e le simsa toi i zo ko cu mapti le nu tavla
> fi le selta'a po'o
> 

But 1) {ko} is specific to imperative mode: its primary use is exactly 
coextensive with that mode.
2) the referent of {ko} defaults to that of {do} but {ko} is 
assignable, as we learned in an earlier thread, to any nameable group or 
object

I'm not sure I follow the rest: how does {ko} fit talking about the topic of 
conversation only?

<Subj: [lojban] Re: kona, but not the coffee   
Date: 6/17/2001 7:04:20 PM Central Daylight Time  
From:    [email-masked] (Adam Raizen)
To:    [email-masked]

la rab spir cusku di'e

> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:33:08AM -0400, [email-masked] 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".>

{e'u} and {e'o} seem to have different (but not clear how) functions from 
imperatives, but functioons that can be *combined with* imperatives to 
"soften" them. That whole range of directive language needs analysis, but I 
think it has to wait until there is some clear Lojban usage to analyze -- 
English is clearly NOT going to help here.