From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Fri Aug 03 09:48:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 16:48:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 74579 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 16:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 16:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 16:47:35 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id f73GlYF08498 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:47:34 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:47:34 -0600 (MDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] commands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Jay Kominek On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Craig wrote: > 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. doi mi'o ko klama doi assigns the value of do, and ko=do with a funny hat on, as I understand it. > >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. xu'a makes slightly more sense, then. However, it leaves who is supposed to do what, unspecified. xu'a mi'a daxri do ^ Who am I commanding to what? Is that, "Hold still so we can beat you!"? or, "Everybody, kick his ass!"? - Jay Kominek