From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 22 16:52:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 22 Jun 2001 23:52:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 75027 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2001 23:52:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2001 23:52:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2001 23:52:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.80.c0cce54 (4544) for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:52:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <80.c0cce54.2865344d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:52:45 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: kona, but not the coffee To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_80.c0cce54.2865344d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_80.c0cce54.2865344d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/22/2001 4:33:51 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > > But 1) {ko} is specific to imperative mode: its primary use is > exactly > > coextensive with that mode. > > i ma smuni zoizoi imperative mode zoi i pe'i ca le nu minde cei cusku > be zo ko mu'a cu jarco lo selcni> This breaks down in the second clause and I don't know how to patch it. I take it for "When the commander utters "ko", for example, [he] displays an emotion." That doesn't seem to be true even in the rather strange sense of "emotion" used in Lojban: "ko" is not a UI (thank ya, Jesus!), for example, nor clearly connected with any of the emotions listed in the book. It MAY be connected in some particular case with any one or group of them, but that suggests that it itself is not an emotion word. Nor is commanding an act who primary function is to express an emotion -- its primary function is to get someone to do something; the rest is incidental, if it occurs at all. > > <> 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 li'a do kakne le nu cusku lu doi mi'o ko co'e li'u mu'a i gendra > gi'e te jimpe i ku'i tolmle carmi pe'i i melmau fa le nu pilno lo se > cinmo valsi i ja'ebo le se cinmo valsi ka'e se pilno kansa la'e zo do > ji'a i secaubo nitcu le valsi po'u zo ko> {ko}, as a member of KOhA, can be assigned by {goi} to anything at all. In an earlier thread on non-second-person imperatives, Lojbab and/or Cowan pointed this out by way of a solution. I am not sure whether your technique would also work, but it looks OK. It is not as uglily intense as you suggest however -- it really is prettily calmer than the {goi} format. As for using only the emotion words, I'm not sure (and I don't know how to settle it) whether any emotion word or combination of them has exactly the force of an imperative -- certainly none has the rehetorical force in any language I know of, but Lojban may be odd. > > > > > I'm not sure I follow the rest: how does {ko} fit talking about the > topic of > > conversation only? > > i le se tavla ka'e na se casnu i zo ko cu mapti le nu minde la'e zo do > to li'a la'e zo do se tavla gi'u te tavla toi enaike la'e zo mi'o e le > Yeah, I screwed up on that by getting the places scrambled. But the hearer in a talk obviously CAN be the subject of the talk (I have been in many such talks in both roles), but it is the role as hearer that determines being in the referent of {do}. Still, {ko} can be used for other referents, whether it is a good fit (in some aesthetic) or not. I hope, if you need it, you will use it, regardless of your presnt intention. --part1_80.c0cce54.2865344d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/22/2001 4:33:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
araizen@newmail.net writes:

la pycyn cusku di'e

> But 1) {ko} is specific to imperative mode: its primary use is
exactly
> coextensive with that mode.

i ma smuni zoizoi imperative mode zoi i pe'i ca le nu minde cei cusku
be zo ko mu'a cu jarco lo selcni>

This breaks down in the second clause and I don't know how to patch it. I
take it for "When the commander utters "ko", for example, [he] displays an
emotion." That doesn't seem to be true even in the rather strange sense of
"emotion" used in Lojban: "ko" is not a UI (thank ya, Jesus!), for example,
nor clearly connected with any of the emotions listed in the book. It MAY be
connected in some particular case with any one or group of them, but that
suggests that it itself is not an emotion word. Nor is commanding an act who
primary function is to express an emotion -- its primary function is to get
someone to do something; the rest is incidental, if it occurs at all.

<> 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 li'a do kakne le nu cusku lu doi mi'o ko co'e li'u mu'a i gendra
gi'e te jimpe i ku'i tolmle carmi pe'i i melmau fa le nu pilno lo se
cinmo valsi i ja'ebo le se cinmo valsi ka'e se pilno kansa la'e zo do
ji'a i secaubo nitcu le valsi po'u zo ko>

{ko}, as a member of KOhA, can be assigned by {goi} to anything at all. In
an earlier thread on non-second-person imperatives, Lojbab and/or Cowan
pointed this out by way of a solution. I am not sure whether your technique
would also work, but it looks OK. It is not as uglily intense as you suggest
however -- it really is prettily calmer than the {goi} format. As for using
only the emotion words, I'm not sure (and I don't know how to settle it)
whether any emotion word or combination of them has exactly the force of an
imperative -- certainly none has the rehetorical force in any language I
know of, but Lojban may be odd.

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

i le se tavla ka'e na se casnu i zo ko cu mapti le nu minde la'e zo do
to li'a la'e zo do se tavla gi'u te tavla toi enaike la'e zo mi'o e le
simsa i za'a do na tugni i ku'i ai mi noroi cusku lu doi mi'o ko li'u

Yeah, I screwed up on that by getting the places scrambled. But the hearer
in a talk obviously CAN be the subject of the talk (I have been in many such
talks in both roles), but it is the role as hearer that determines being in
the referent of {do}. Still, {ko} can be used for other referents, whether
it is a good fit (in some aesthetic) or not. I hope, if you need it, you
will use it, regardless of your presnt intention. --part1_80.c0cce54.2865344d_boundary--