From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Aug 03 09:39:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 16:39:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 51102 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 16:38:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 16:38:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 16:38:32 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3A66EEF0100; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:39:02 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] commands Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:38:31 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" >> On the Portland Pattern Repository's wiki, it was observed that there is no >> way to express an imperative in lojban without using ko. Ko has no plural, >> and so you can't say 'you all imperative' type constructions, a la >> 'Disperse, ye rebels, disperse!' Therefore, I have just proposed on the >> Lojban wiki a cmavo, xu'a, which would function like xu but make the bridi a >> command, allowing plural imperatives and statements like 'let's go.' Clearly >> we need commands other than ko, which is actually rather limited. >> 1. Am I unknowingly inventing a way to do something that can really already >> be done? >What is wrong with roko? Nothing. Thank you. But we still can't do constructions with it like 'let's go.' It's not a command to allow us to go, but rather a command directed at multiple people, including the speaker. Compare it less to 'allow us to go' and more to Spanish 'vamonos' which is in the imperative. >> 2. What do you think of this proposal, if I'm not? >There are other catagories of cmavo available for experimentation, aren't >there? If so, at least use something that resembles the other relevent >pro-sumti. (ko'oi or something) xu'a would function like xu but making commands rather than questions, so it sounds like xu. But ko'oi works also. --la kreig.daniyl. 'segu le bavli temci gi mi'o renvi lo purci .i ga le fonxa janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74