ko klama ma

[tanbla]

coi

 

 

I was wondering how multiple questions/commands work in a sentence. For example, what does {ko klama ma} mean? {xu ko klama}? {xu ko klama ma}?

 

ki'e

[selpa'i]

I interpret a question containing both {xu} and {ma} as being two
questions. (1a) is roughly equal to (1b):

(1a) .i xu do viska ma

(1b) .i xu do viska da .i je do viska ma
"Do you see something, and what is it?".


{ko klama ma} is a bit unusual, but you could understand it as "Where do
I want you to go?". Again, (2a) and (2b) are roughly equivalent:

(2a) ko klama ma

(2b) mi minde do lo nu do klama ma
"I command you to go where?"


Thus, {xu ko klama ma} would become:
(3) .i xu mi minde do da .i je mi minde do lo nu do klama ma
"Do I command you to do something, and where do I command you to go?"


mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
.i pau mi me ma .i pa mai ko mi jungau la'e di'u
.i ba bo mi va'o lo nu nelci lo nu me ma kau cu barkla
.i va'o lo nu na nelci cu denpa ti lo nu mi drata

[ianek]

On 21 Lip, 22:35, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:
> Am 21.07.2012 22:02, schrieb tanbla:
>
> > coi
> > I was wondering how multiple questions/commands work in a sentence.
> > For example, what does {ko klama ma} mean? {xu ko klama}? {xu ko klama
> > ma}?
>
> I interpret a question containing both {xu} and {ma} as being two
> questions. (1a) is roughly equal to (1b):
>
> (1a) .i xu do viska ma
>
> (1b) .i xu do viska da .i je do viska ma
> "Do you see something, and what is it?".
>
> {ko klama ma} is a bit unusual, but you could understand it as "Where do
> I want you to go?". Again, (2a) and (2b) are roughly equivalent:

I see it otherwise. A sentence with {ko} is always a command, not a
question about a command. So for me this is something like {ko klama i
do klama ma}, ie. 'Go! Where will you go?'.

>
> (2a) ko klama ma
>
> (2b) mi minde do lo nu do klama ma
>       "I command you to go where?"
>
> Thus, {xu ko klama ma} would become:
> (3) .i xu mi minde do da .i je mi minde do lo nu do klama ma
>      "Do I command you to do something, and where do I command you to go?"

Again, {xu} is a question about {klama}, not about "command"/{minde}.
I think this sentence is somewhat strained, but for me it would mean
"Go! Will you go and where?"

mu'o mi'e ianek

[selpa'i]

Am 21.07.2012 23:01, schrieb ianek:

On 21 Lip, 22:35, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

Am 21.07.2012 22:02, schrieb tanbla:

coi
I was wondering how multiple questions/commands work in a sentence.
For example, what does {ko klama ma} mean? {xu ko klama}? {xu ko klama
ma}?

I interpret a question containing both {xu} and {ma} as being two
questions. (1a) is roughly equal to (1b):

(1a) .i xu do viska ma

(1b) .i xu do viska da .i je do viska ma
"Do you see something, and what is it?".

{ko klama ma} is a bit unusual, but you could understand it as "Where do
I want you to go?". Again, (2a) and (2b) are roughly equivalent:

I see it otherwise. A sentence with {ko} is always a command, not a
question about a command. So for me this is something like {ko klama i
do klama ma}, ie. 'Go! Where will you go?'.

If we take {ko klama ma} as an example, we can analyze it like this:

Ignoring klama3,4,5 we have:

[[klama]] = λx ∈D. λy ∈D. x klama y

[[ko klama]] = λy ∈D. ko klama y

If both {ko} and any number of {ma} are present, {ko} takes precedence in filling its place:

[[ko klama ma]] = λx ∈D. λy ∈D. x klama y
                = λy ∈D. ko klama y (= mi do minde lo nu do ce'u klama)
                = ko klama ma       (= mi do minde lo nu do ma klama)

That is, we first have the denotation "ko klama y" and then fill the remaining place with a question about what belongs in that place. This means we are asking about the destination of klama *within* the command. The lowest priority argument (ma) is applied last.

Similarly, for (simplified) {xu ko klama}, the xu is lower "priority", but it does not compete for any sumti-places, so we simply get a questioned predication (I'm using "?" to indicate that). Again omitting unnecessary places:

[[klama]] = λx ∈D. x klama

[[ko klama]] = ko klama  (= mi do minde lo nu do klama)

[[(ko klama)? ]] = xu ko klama  (= xu mi do minde lo nu do klama)

This yields the hierarchy of order of application:
ko > ma > xu

This effectively makes UI (most importantly {xu}) the most powerful operators, because they come last and swallow up everything else that happened before them.
Conversely, things like imperatives (ko) or negation (NA) are relatively weak, as they are applied much earlier.

The complete hierarchy in my opinion is:
NA > ko > ma > UI

Pardon me if I forgot something, it's way past bed-time :)

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[tanbla]

Your translation is what I thought it might be, though I'm still unsure if it is really based on personal interpretation or if there is a rule for this.

[tanbla]

Lotsa weird symbols... :)

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

The effects of {ko} and question-words on a bridi are fairly
orthogonal, and I don't see
why one should scope over another. {xu ko klama ma} is commanding the
listener to go,
asking whether or not he goes and asking whereto he goes. Both {xu} and {ko}
remove any declarative force from the bridi, so nothing is being asserted.

On 21 July 2012 17:35, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:
> (2a) ko klama ma
>
> (2b) mi minde do lo nu do klama ma
> "I command you to go where?"
>

By a similar logic, from {do klama ma} we could get
{mi xusra lo du'u do klama ma}

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

[selpa'i]

Am 22.07.2012 07:41, schrieb Felipe Gon�alves Assis:
> On 21 July 2012 17:35, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:
>> (2a) ko klama ma
>>
>> (2b) mi minde do lo nu do klama ma
>> "I command you to go where?"
>>
>
> By a similar logic, from {do klama ma} we could get
> {mi xusra lo du'u do klama ma}

Yes, but the expansions I used aren't actually identical. They only
serve to show the order of operations. {ko klama} and {mi do minde lo nu
do klama} are of different moods and do not (necessarily) have identical
implicatures. In the case of your example, I don't think you can expand
it to {mi xusra lo du'u do ma klama} because {ma} is the only operator
and so no extra step, i.e. no expansion, should be carried out.