From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jul 05 18:33:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Jul 2001 01:33:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 43129 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2001 01:33:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2001 01:33:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.61) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2001 01:33:22 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:33:21 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.174 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:33:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.174] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Uses of Language Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:33:21 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2001 01:33:21.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[A47C5740:01C105BB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Any further suggestions (or suggested eliminations, repositionings, >collapsing, etc.)? Consider these three sentences: 1) ma ti gasnu Who did this? 2) ko mi jungau le du'u makau ti gasnu Tell me who did this! 3) mi djica le nu do mi jungau le du'u makau ti gasnu [mi djica le nu kokau mi jungau le du'u makau ti gasnu] I want you to tell me who did this. On the surface, (1) is a question, (2) is a command and (3) is an assertion, but their _use_ is, leaving aside nuances of tone, basically the same. I would say they have the same function but different form. Before we do classifications of function, I think we should concentrate on the classifications of form. Form and function are not isomorphic in Lojban any more than in any other language, even though probably someone at some point claimed that they were or should be. Question forms in Lojban are probably the easiest to identify, they are all and only those forms that contain one of the (unkaued) question words: ma, mo, xu, xo, pei, ji, etc. They are ususally used to ask questions, but nobody can stop you from using them for other functions: "would you be kind enough to pass me the salt?" is a question in form but not in function, and it would be natural enough to replicate in Lojban. And of course nobody can stop you from using other forms for the function normally fullfilled by questions, as in (2) and (3) above. Directive forms are of course all those containing {ko}, but also, I would say, those marked with e'o, e'u, ei, e'a, also e'e in my use, and perhaps e'i. I am also tempted to make this a larger category (volitive?) encompassing a'o, au, ai, a'i (understood as "trying"). These are all indicators of a situation that may or may not realize, and with which the speaker is concerned. The listener is often a priviledged actor in the case of the e-series, thus the special {ko} form. It is clear that {da'i} corresponds to the speculative form, but I'm not quite sure yet how to handle what follows from the speculation (English "would"). For example: Suppose you were here. I am here. We would both be here! The first sentence is marked with {da'i}, the second is a normal assertion. How do we mark the third? It is not another {da'i}, for it is not a new assumption, but it shouldn't either be confused with a normal assertion. Some combination of {da'i} with something else? Pity {da'ibi'unai} is so long. Perhaps {da'ibi'u} for "were" and plain {da'i} for "would"? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.