From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 03 14:35:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 21:35:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 57600 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 21:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 21:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 21:35:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.9.194d9202 (4556) for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9.194d9202.289c732d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:35:41 EDT Subject: Revised RECORD (was RE: command) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9.194d9202.289c732d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_9.194d9202.289c732d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was off looking at old stuff and missed the new old stuff going on now: Directive language, language used with the purpose of getting someone to do the specified thing, has several forms in Lojban and is related to several different gismu: minde, stidi, pikci, cpedu, and probably more, matching yet further English keywords. The obvious forms in Lojban are {ko} imperatives, and sentences, both imperatives and not, with {e'o} and {e'u} (and, more indirectly, {e'a}, {ei}, {e'i}). Given the lack of a clear social structure for Lojban, it is not yet clear what the various differences are among these different predicates and different sentence forms. It is said that imperatives (sentences containing {ko}) are not imperious and {e'o} has some history of representing English "Please," minimal formal politeness. But none of this is cast in jell-o (tm) even. So, usage really does have a role to play here, guided by what little there is in Book and list: both "request" and "suggestion" sound even less imperious than "imperative," for example. But on {ko} several things are clear. 1) {ko} does not have to be the first sumti to make an imperative; any sentence in which {ko} occurs is an imperative, directing the referent of {ko} to so act that the sentence becomes true. 2) while {ko} defaults to {do} for referent, {do} and hence {ko} can be reset in context by {doi} and {ko} alone can be reset by {goi}, so that the referent may be one self or the ones for whom one is a spokesperson, or one's auditor(s) or any other specifiable group -- first second or third person, singular or plural, as we say in languages about which that can be said. Given the range of options open and the uncertainty about what these various forms mean (or even can mean) it seems pointless to be suggesting MORE forms for directive language at this time. --part1_9.194d9202.289c732d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was off looking at old stuff and missed the new old stuff going on now:

Directive language, language used with the purpose of getting someone to do
the specified thing, has several forms in Lojban and is related to several
different gismu:
minde, stidi, pikci, cpedu,  and probably more, matching yet further English
keywords.  The obvious forms in Lojban are {ko} imperatives, and sentences,
both imperatives and not, with {e'o} and {e'u} (and, more indirectly, {e'a},
{ei}, {e'i}). Given the lack of a clear social structure for Lojban, it is
not yet clear what the various differences are among these different
predicates and different sentence forms.  It is said that imperatives
(sentences containing {ko}) are not imperious and {e'o} has some history of
representing English "Please," minimal formal politeness.  But none of this
is cast in jell-o (tm) even. So, usage really does have a role to play here,
guided by what little there is in Book and list: both "request" and
"suggestion" sound even less imperious than "imperative," for example.  

But on {ko} several things are clear.  1) {ko} does not have to be the first
sumti to make an imperative; any sentence in which {ko} occurs is an
imperative, directing the referent of {ko} to so act that the sentence
becomes true. 2) while {ko} defaults to {do} for referent, {do} and hence
{ko} can be reset in context by {doi} and {ko} alone can be reset by {goi},
so that the referent may be one self or the ones for whom one is a
spokesperson, or one's auditor(s) or any other specifiable group -- first
second or third person, singular or plural, as we say in languages about
which that can be said.

Given the range of options open and the uncertainty about what these various
forms mean (or even can mean) it seems pointless to be suggesting MORE forms
for directive language at this time. --part1_9.194d9202.289c732d_boundary--