So nobody gave me examples of differences between {.e'o do broda} and {.e'o ko broda}. {ko} is officially translated as "imperative you, listener". Therefore, {doi mi ko sipna} is na smudra.
So for now I propose the following translation: {ko broda} = {doi do do'u .e'i do broda}. If so then {ko} is a nice abbreviation.
On Tuesday, October 25, 1994 3:23:34 AM UTC+4, (unknown) wrote:
> I just realized that it is strange that we have a special word for > the "command mode", but not for other similar things like the > "intentional mode", or the "volitional mode", etc, which are handled > with UIs, but could equally well have been something like {ko}.
> For example, say {xi'u} was the "intentional {mi}", then we'd have
> xi'u klama lo zarci ~ ai mi klama lo zarci
> just like
> ko klama lo zarci ~ e'o do klama lo zarci
> I don't see why the imperative is somehow more fundamental than the > intentional, volitional, and all the others.
> It would be interesting to make a list of the attitudinals that change > the sentence to opaque mode, like {ai} and {e'o}.
> This is assuming I'm right that {ai mi klama lo zarci} means > "I intend that there be a store such that I go to it" and not > "there is a store such that I intend to go to it".
> Jorge
On Sunday, August 19, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:
> Wait a minute. arpis's example of a request using imperatives was in >> English. In Lojban, the imperative meaning is always and only that of >> giving an order/command, i.e., telling someone to do something (, which in >> English also carries the expectation that the command will be obeyed), or >> as hinted by someone, to cause the sentence to be true.
> My point is that "telling someone to do something" is a much broader > category of utterances than "order/command".
>> stevo
>>> One more question, whats the difference between {pe'u do}, {pe'u ko} and >>> {ko .e'o}?
>>>>>>>>> Hunh? An imperative *is *necessarily an order. That's the >>>>>>>>> definition of imperative.
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> {.e'u} and {ko} largely differ in the fact that after >>>>>>>>>>> insubmission after {ko} you might be executed by your commander whereas >>>>>>>>>>> after {.e'u} you would probably survive. zo'o
>>>>>>>>> "Insubmission" is a new and useful word for me. Thanks for using >>>>>>>>> it!
>>>>>>>>> stevo
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 17, 2012 4:24:31 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.08.2012 13:47, schrieb Paul Predkiewicz: >>>>>>>>>>>> > but {xa'e} is a rafsi of {xance}, how would you use it to say >>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> > things as "let's go"?
>>>>>>>>>>>> -xa'e- is the rafsi, but xa'e as a cmavo is a LAhE (even though >>>>>>>>>>>> I wish >>>>>>>>>>>> it was UI) that makes it so that the sumti it's used on is >>>>>>>>>>>> treated as if >>>>>>>>>>>> it was ko, i.e. a third-person command.
>>>>>>>>>>>> xa'e lo gerku cu cliva >>>>>>>>>>>> "The dogs shall leave!" >>>>>>>>>>>> "May the dogs leave!" >>>>>>>>>>>> "I want the dogs to leave."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether it's very useful is another question. {.e'u} will >>>>>>>>>>>> usually be >>>>>>>>>>>> enough for cohortatives at least.
>>>>>>>>>>>> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo >>>>>>>>>>>> lejbo
>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@** >>>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "lojban" group. >>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@** >>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "lojban" group. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@** >>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "lojban" group. >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
{.e'o do broda} is not an imperative. The request is not necessarily
directed at the listener, nor is the statement explicit about who is
expected to enact change, and it relies on the understanding that certain
attitudinals can make a statement counterfactual (which is not universally
accepted, IIRC); {.e'o ko broda} has only the first of these problems, and
not much of that one.
{doi mi ko sipna} makes perfect sense; there's no reason why the speaker
and the listener need be different.
I disagree with that translation on several levels: first of all, {ko} does
not indicate obligation; second of all, the second statement is much vaguer
than the first; third of all, I think {ko} is primitive enough in the
language that a translation of it is not practical.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:39 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So nobody gave me examples of differences between {.e'o do broda} and
> {.e'o ko broda}.
> {ko} is officially translated as "imperative you, listener". Therefore,
> {doi mi ko sipna} is na smudra.
> So for now I propose the following translation:
> {ko broda} = {doi do do'u .e'i do broda}.
> If so then {ko} is a nice abbreviation.
> btw here is an extract from an old post by Jorge.
> On Tuesday, October 25, 1994 3:23:34 AM UTC+4, (unknown) wrote:
>> I just realized that it is strange that we have a special word for
>> the "command mode", but not for other similar things like the
>> "intentional mode", or the "volitional mode", etc, which are handled
>> with UIs, but could equally well have been something like {ko}.
>> For example, say {xi'u} was the "intentional {mi}", then we'd have
>> xi'u klama lo zarci ~ ai mi klama lo zarci
>> just like
>> ko klama lo zarci ~ e'o do klama lo zarci
>> I don't see why the imperative is somehow more fundamental than the
>> intentional, volitional, and all the others.
>> It would be interesting to make a list of the attitudinals that change
>> the sentence to opaque mode, like {ai} and {e'o}.
>> This is assuming I'm right that {ai mi klama lo zarci} means
>> "I intend that there be a store such that I go to it" and not
>> "there is a store such that I intend to go to it".
>> Jorge
> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:
>> Wait a minute. arpis's example of a request using imperatives was in
>>> English. In Lojban, the imperative meaning is always and only that of
>>> giving an order/command, i.e., telling someone to do something (, which in
>>> English also carries the expectation that the command will be obeyed), or
>>> as hinted by someone, to cause the sentence to be true.
>> My point is that "telling someone to do something" is a much broader
>> category of utterances than "order/command".
>>> stevo
>>>> One more question, whats the difference between {pe'u do}, {pe'u ko}
>>>> and {ko .e'o}?
>>>>>>>>>> Hunh? An imperative *is *necessarily an order. That's the
>>>>>>>>>> definition of imperative.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM, la gleki <
>>>>>>>>>>> gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> {.e'u} and {ko} largely differ in the fact that after
>>>>>>>>>>>> insubmission after {ko} you might be executed by your commander whereas
>>>>>>>>>>>> after {.e'u} you would probably survive. zo'o
>>>>>>>>>> "Insubmission" is a new and useful word for me. Thanks for using
>>>>>>>>>> it!
>>>>>>>>>> stevo
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 17, 2012 4:24:31 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.08.2012 13:47, schrieb Paul Predkiewicz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > but {xa'e} is a rafsi of {xance}, how would you use it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > things as "let's go"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -xa'e- is the rafsi, but xa'e as a cmavo is a LAhE (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though I wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was UI) that makes it so that the sumti it's used on is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated as if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was ko, i.e. a third-person command.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xa'e lo gerku cu cliva
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The dogs shall leave!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "May the dogs leave!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I want the dogs to leave."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether it's very useful is another question. {.e'u} will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough for cohortatives at least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lejbo
>>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@**
>>>>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "lojban" group.
>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@**
>>>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "lojban" group.
>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@**
>>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@**
>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "lojban" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@**
>>> googlegroups.com.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Escape Landsome <escaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually what is the difference between these three utterances ?
> (1) {ko catlu ko}
> (2) {ko catlu do}
> (3) {do catlu ko}
> ???
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
Imagine there was a mirror you were using to look at yourself. There are
two relevant actions:
a) look at the yourself in the mirror, such as by turning your head = (2)
b) be seen in the mirror, presumably by moving to in front of the mirror =
(3)
(1) corresponds to doing both (2) and (3)
All three will result in you seeing yourself in the mirror (do catlu do),
but as arpis points out it's a matter of emphasis about which bit you
should do.
mu'o mi'e ros
On 21 August 2012 00:22, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's subtle, and I don't have a solid enough grasp to explain it, and I'd
> stick to the first one.
> My best effort explanation would be that {ko} is active in its role
> (observer or observed), while {do} is passive.
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Escape Landsome <escaa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Actually what is the difference between these three utterances ?
>> (1) {ko catlu ko}
>> (2) {ko catlu do}
>> (3) {do catlu ko}
>> ???
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> --
> mu'o mi'e .arpis.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Escape Landsome wrote:
> Wow, the presence of a mirror really helps you, that's fantastic.
The mirror is not needed at all. You could give the same examples
with "Move (some part of) yourself into your own line of sight!" vs
"Change your line of sight such as to view yourself!".
> But can you still explain things like that for, say :
> (1) {do guska ko} vs {ko guska do} vs {ko guska ko}
What is this supposed to mean? "scrape yourself off something"?
Anyways, (1a) "Make yourself be scraped off (by yourself)!"
(maybe you have to "scrape off" someone, but are allowed to choose
whether it's yourself or someone else?[0])
vs. (1b) "Scrape yourself off" vs. (1a) .ije (1b)
> (2) {do catra ko} vs {ko catra do} vs {ko catra ko}
Same thing:
(2a) "Make yourself be the one killed by yourself"
vs (2b) "Kill yourself" vs (2a) .ije (2b)
In (2a) the action you should take is to die.
in (2b) it's to kill.
mu'o mi'e la .van.
---
[0] - I have absolutely no idea what this could mean {u'iru'e}
Another difference/key point is that {do} _could_ be replaced by {zo'e},
but {ko} cannot.
But really, I'm going to go with, "The difference doesn't matter so much as
long as there's at least one {ko} in the sentence unless you're a fluent
lojban speaker and writing/reading poetry or florid prose."
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Escape Landsome <escaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you mean exactly ?
> That I should kill me but specifically die, the killing part being not
> so important ?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
