Robin retry: commands.

[Robin Lee Powell]

I think {le'o} and {ga'i} between them do what I want, depending on
situation.

-Robin

--
http://intelligence.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

[selpa'i]

la .camgusmis. cu cusku di'e

> I think {le'o} and {ga'i} between them do what I want, depending on
> situation.

This would seem to imply that all commands are either expressed
aggressively or with hauteur, which I personally find doubtful. There is
a certain force behind a command, but the nature of that force needn't
correspond to one of those two, in my opinion.

Has {.e'i} fallen out of favor with you again?

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[Robin Lee Powell]

Eeeeenh? Having noticed {le'o}, I simply acknowledged that that was
what I really wanted, in terms of emotional content. I'm on the
fence about {.e'i} (which never stopped being true).

-Robin

[Betsemes]

When I think of this subject about giving commands, the mental image I
get is about someone trusting his command will be obeyed. Constraint,
agression, or hauteur comes as a sign of someone who has not any
significant authority, so some additional force have to be used on the
command in order to be obeyed. That's just my very personal take of
this about commands.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[John E. Clifford]

That sounds like what at least the recipient would call a demand or bossing or ordering about, all implying that the ordered has no power to command.

Sent from my iPad

[la gleki]

Don't you feel the difference between

I should = mi te javni => .ei

and

I have to = mi bilga => .e'i

???? 

-Robin

[Betsemes]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:00 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That sounds like what at least the recipient would call a demand or bossing or ordering about, all implying that the ordered has no power to command.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. Anyway, I was talking about
how the commander feels about giving commands. A command can be given
in a very happy mood. Or maybe in a sad or depressive mood. In any of
those ways, a commander with real authority trusts his command will be
obeyed; he is sure. It may not be given with arrogance, or pride, or
trying to give any kind of force to his words. Above all, a commander
must be self-confident.

[John E. Clifford]

Oops! "orderer", not "ordered" (autocorrect kicks in at weird places). In any case, the point is that the attitude of the one uttering the imperative has nothing to do with whether it is a command or not; that is an objective power calculation (with some fine print, perhaps). Similarly for requests and pleas. Demands are somewhat different, but still not much about attitudes, etc.
Sent from my iPad

[Betsemes]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oops! "orderer", not "ordered" (autocorrect kicks in at weird places). In any case, the point is that the attitude of the one uttering the imperative has nothing to do with whether it is a command or not; that is an objective power calculation (with some fine print, perhaps). Similarly for requests and pleas. Demands are somewhat different, but still not much about attitudes, etc.

Okay, I see what you're saying which is mostly what I'm trying to say.
The whole thread is dealing with attitudes; hauteur, constraint, etc.
and to the extent of my knowledge, attitude is of little importance
for a command to be a command. To me, self-confidence is key to a good
commander and yet nobody was dealing with that. A command can be
delivered in a relaxed manner too.

My whole point is I think an attitudinal is not the way to go to mark
a command as a command and not a request. But this is an opinion of
mine. My personal take on this is that the difference between a
command and a request is that carrying out a request is optional,
carrying out a command is a requirement.

[John E. Clifford]

Well, yes, but only because the issuer of a command, even if totally lacking in self-confidence, etc., has the power to bring down evil upon you if you don't obey. Obeying is always optional but sometimes the consequences (perceived expected) of exercising that option are unacceptable. But the order given to a CO by a general is no less an order for the fact that the CO does not obey. Nothing matters here but grammatical form and power, though power may suggest certain modifications of form: a plea should not be peremptory surely nor (see Pinafore) a command too polite.

Sent from my iPad

[MorphemeAddict]

In USA military, legally even requests, unless specifically stated as optional, are considered orders, and must be obeyed. If you believe in that paradigm. 

stevo

[Betsemes]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In USA military, legally even requests, unless specifically stated as
> optional, are considered orders, and must be obeyed. If you believe in that
> paradigm.

We are getting off topic. I should have used the expression
"psychological authority" instead of "true authority". What we are
talking about is how the commander feels when giving a command. It
depends to a great extent on the psychological makeup of the one
giving the command. Whether or not he is backed up by an
organizational machine is irrelevant.

If I understand {ga'i} correctly, it marks the referent to be of lower
rank. I don't think this is appropriate to mark it as a command.

{le'o}, according to jbovlaste is aggressiveness. If the commander
feels the need to be aggressive when giving commands, that hints to
some kind of inner shortcoming, so that he feels he needs to give the
command some additional force to compensate; and that makes it, in my
opinion, not a universal way to mark a "ko-bridi" as a command.

{e'i} is "feeling constraint" according to jbovlaste. According to the
Merrian-Webster dictionary (sorry, I'm not an English-native),
"constraint" is:

1
a : the act of constraining
b : the state of being checked, restricted, or compelled to avoid or
perform some action <the constraint and monotony of a monastic life —
Matthew Arnold>
c : a constraining condition, agency, or force : check <put legal
constraints on the board's activities>
2
a : repression of one's own feelings, behavior, or actions
b : a sense of being constrained : embarrassment

This seems to be the way the one receiving the command should feel,
not the commander's.

According to jbovlaste, {e'o} means "attitudinal: request - negative
request.". This doesn't look like a feeling, more like an intention;
the speaker's intention to make a request. There might be a plethora
of different feelings attached to this intention depending on the one
making the request. This is what we need to mark a "ko-bridi" as a
command. We need to clearly state the "ko-bridi" is a command.

I'm no expert here, so I may be wrong, but my understanding on "ko
broda" is it means "make {ko broda} true", either as a request, or as
a command. The CLL makes a request explicit with "e'o ko broda".

What about "e'onai ko broda"? {e'onai} means "negative request"
according to jbovlaste. So what is a negative request? My naive
interpretation:

e'onai ko broda
negative request, make "ko broda" true
this is not a request, make "ko broda" true
this is an order, make "ko broda" true

The experts here can explain why I am wrong....

...or maybe why they have not noticed this before, in case I'm correct.

mu'o mi'e betsemes

[.arpis.]

If I understand {ga'i} correctly, it marks the referent to be of lower
rank. I don't think this is appropriate to mark it as a command.

{ga'i} marks the speaker to be higher rank; {ga'i nai} marks the speaker to be lower rank.
 

{le'o}, according to jbovlaste is aggressiveness. If the commander
feels the need to be aggressive when giving commands, that hints to
some kind of inner shortcoming, so that he feels he needs to give the
command some additional force to compensate; and that makes it, in my
opinion, not a universal way to mark a "ko-bridi" as a command.

I agree.

{e'i} is "feeling constraint" according to jbovlaste. According to the
Merrian-Webster dictionary (sorry, I'm not an English-native),
"constraint" is:

[...]

This seems to be the way the one receiving the command should feel,
not the commander's.

Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to use dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and {e'a}.

According to jbovlaste, {e'o} means "attitudinal: request - negative
request.". This doesn't look like a feeling, more like an intention;
the speaker's intention to make a request. There might be a plethora
of different feelings attached to this intention depending on the one
making the request. This is what we need to mark a "ko-bridi" as a
command. We need to clearly state the "ko-bridi" is a command.

I'm no expert here, so I may be wrong, but my understanding on "ko
broda" is it means "make {ko broda} true", either as a request, or as
a command. The CLL makes a request explicit with "e'o ko broda".

What about "e'onai ko broda"? {e'onai} means "negative request"
according to jbovlaste. So what is a negative request? My naive
interpretation:

e'onai ko broda
negative request, make "ko broda" true
this is not a request, make "ko broda" true
this is an order, make "ko broda" true

The experts here can explain why I am wrong....

"negative request" seems to have been interpreted as "please don't" in the few uses I read of the few uses I found (here: http://www.lojban.org/corpus/)

The BPFK proposed revision is to make {e'o nai} an offer.

The problem with your logic for making {e'o nai} a command is that an analogous argument can be made for {e'u nai}.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Betsemes]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to use
> dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and {e'a}.

Thanks. That makes much better sense since all three seems to be more
intensions than anything else.

> "negative request" seems to have been interpreted as "please don't" in the
> few uses I read of the few uses I found (here:
> http://www.lojban.org/corpus/)
> The BPFK proposed revision is to make {e'o nai} an offer.
> The problem with your logic for making {e'o nai} a command is that an
> analogous argument can be made for {e'u nai}.

Hmmm, actually, making {e'unai} mean "command" makes much better sense
to me than "warning":
attitudinal: suggestion - abandon suggest - command.

[Jacob Errington]

On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

If I understand {ga'i} correctly, it marks the referent to be of lower
rank. I don't think this is appropriate to mark it as a command.

{ga'i} marks the speaker to be higher rank; {ga'i nai} marks the speaker to be lower rank.

Actually, it marks rank of the speaker compared to the attached thing, which is a subtle distinction.

e.g. {.i lo ga'i gerku cu melbi} has the dog marked as being the thing towards which the speaker feels higher.

Although rank has a connection to the *ability* to give orders, typically, I wouldn't say that using {ga'i} is a *way* to give orders though.

 

 

{le'o}, according to jbovlaste is aggressiveness. If the commander
feels the need to be aggressive when giving commands, that hints to
some kind of inner shortcoming, so that he feels he needs to give the
command some additional force to compensate; and that makes it, in my
opinion, not a universal way to mark a "ko-bridi" as a command.

I agree.

I agree too. {le'o} is the kind of thing a store owner would say when kicking you out. The subtext is generally supposed to match up with the text in Lojban, which is why indicators exist.

 

{e'i} is "feeling constraint" according to jbovlaste. According to the
Merrian-Webster dictionary (sorry, I'm not an English-native),
"constraint" is:

[...]

This seems to be the way the one receiving the command should feel,
not the commander's.

Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to use dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and {e'a}.

In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it. Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical IRC jbopre.

 

According to jbovlaste, {e'o} means "attitudinal: request - negative
request.". This doesn't look like a feeling, more like an intention;
the speaker's intention to make a request. There might be a plethora
of different feelings attached to this intention depending on the one
making the request. This is what we need to mark a "ko-bridi" as a
command. We need to clearly state the "ko-bridi" is a command. 

I'm no expert here, so I may be wrong, but my understanding on "ko
broda" is it means "make {ko broda} true", either as a request, or as
a command. The CLL makes a request explicit with "e'o ko broda".

What about "e'onai ko broda"? {e'onai} means "negative request"
according to jbovlaste. So what is a negative request? My naive
interpretation:

e'onai ko broda
negative request, make "ko broda" true
this is not a request, make "ko broda" true
this is an order, make "ko broda" true

The experts here can explain why I am wrong....

"negative request" seems to have been interpreted as "please don't" in the few uses I read of the few uses I found (here: http://www.lojban.org/corpus/)

The BPFK proposed revision is to make {e'o nai} an offer.

The problem with your logic for making {e'o nai} a command is that an analogous argument can be made for {e'u nai}.

A command to "not do" ? Sounds like {.e'o do na broda}. Why should the attitudinal just "include negation". Sounds like an extremely pointless feature. The BPFK's idea seems best. {.i .e'onai do da pinxe} -> "Would you like something to drink?"

.i mi'e la tsani  mu'o

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:14:40 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

If I understand {ga'i} correctly, it marks the referent to be of lower
rank. I don't think this is appropriate to mark it as a command.

{ga'i} marks the speaker to be higher rank; {ga'i nai} marks the speaker to be lower rank.

Actually, it marks rank of the speaker compared to the attached thing, which is a subtle distinction.

e.g. {.i lo ga'i gerku cu melbi} has the dog marked as being the thing towards which the speaker feels higher.

Although rank has a connection to the *ability* to give orders, typically, I wouldn't say that using {ga'i} is a *way* to give orders though.

 

 

{le'o}, according to jbovlaste is aggressiveness. If the commander
feels the need to be aggressive when giving commands, that hints to
some kind of inner shortcoming, so that he feels he needs to give the
command some additional force to compensate; and that makes it, in my
opinion, not a universal way to mark a "ko-bridi" as a command.

I agree.

I agree too. {le'o} is the kind of thing a store owner would say when kicking you out. The subtext is generally supposed to match up with the text in Lojban, which is why indicators exist.

 

{e'i} is "feeling constraint" according to jbovlaste. According to the
Merrian-Webster dictionary (sorry, I'm not an English-native),
"constraint" is:

[...]

This seems to be the way the one receiving the command should feel,
not the commander's.

Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to use dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and {e'a}.

In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it. Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical IRC jbopre.

I vote against redefining it. For me

e'i = sei bilga

ei = sei te javni

e'o = sei cpedu

and so on.

if u redefine e'i as command then we lose {sei bilga} meaning. If you use .ei for that then we lose {sei te javni} meaning.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals has the following text:

"selpa'i uses {.ei} as "should" and {.e'i} as "must" (as in {.e'i mi'o denpa .i lo sorpeka pu'o zvati}), I (camgusmis) think that's pretty good. The {.e'e} here is obviously out of the question, and I think keeping something like "must" is worth it, too, and closer to what we have."

I don't know what happened to that obvious solution.

In any case please don't deprive me of {sei bilga} and {sei te javni}.

[selpa'i]

la tsani cu cusku di'e

> On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com

> Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to
> use dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and
> {e'a}.
>
>
> In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it.
> Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical IRC
> jbopre.

An even better reason than that would be that this {.e'i} is, as arpis
said, more in line with the rest of {.e'o}, {.e'u} and {.e'a} (and
{.e'e} if its new definition goes through, which I hope very much).

Even if nobody used {.e'i} in the proposed sense at the moment, it would
still be a good idea. However, gleki is bringing up a good point, which
we will have to sort out if we are to push new-{.e'i} in good
conscience: What to do about the old meaning of {.e'i}?

> A command to "not do" ? Sounds like {.e'o do na broda}. Why should the
> attitudinal just "include negation". Sounds like an extremely pointless
> feature. The BPFK's idea seems best. {.i .e'onai do da pinxe} -> "Would
> you like something to drink?"

Very much agreed. Negation can always be done with {na} instead.

[selpa'i]

la gleki cu cusku di'e

> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:14:40 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
> In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it.
> Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical
> IRC jbopre.
>
>
>
> I vote against redefining it. For me
>
> e'i = sei bilga
> ei = sei te javni
> e'o = sei cpedu
>
> and so on.
>
> if u redefine e'i as command then we lose {sei bilga} meaning. If you
> use .ei for that then we lose {sei te javni} meaning.

je'e .i va'o ku da tai ma minde .i zo'o ko na stidi tu'a lu sei minde
li'u .i pe'i lo nu minde cu vajni mutce .i .e'o do stidi su'o pa lu'a lo
te cuxna

> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals has the
> following text:
>
> "selpa'i uses {.ei} as "should" and {.e'i} as "must" (as in {.e'i mi'o
> denpa .i lo sorpeka pu'o zvati}), I (camgusmis) think that's pretty
> good. The {.e'e} here is obviously out of the question, and I think
> keeping something like "must" is worth it, too, and closer to what we have."

ie .i mi pu cusku la'e di'u .i ku'i pe'i lo cnino smuni be zo .e'i ku
ji'a plixau

ni'o ta'o mi na sai tugni lo du'u la'e zo .e'e na ka'e se junri .i pe'i
prane smuni zo .e'e .i mi nelci mutce .i je'u zo .e'e zo .e'i zmadu lo
ka mi nelci lo se stidi smuni be ce'u kei lo barda .i na mo'u jdice fi
zo .e'i .i ku'i ja'a go'i fi zo .e'e

> I don't know what happened to that obvious solution.

xu ja'a danfu .i za'a dai lo ji'a drata cu sidbo

> In any case please don't deprive me of {sei bilga} and {sei te javni}.

xu do birti lo du'u lu sei te javni li'u mapti da'i

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:50:30 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

la gleki cu cusku di'e
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:14:40 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>     In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it.
>     Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical
>     IRC jbopre.
>
>
>
> I vote against redefining it. For me
>
> e'i = sei bilga
> ei = sei te javni
> e'o = sei cpedu
>
> and so on.
>
> if u redefine e'i as command then we lose {sei bilga} meaning. If you
> use .ei for that then we lose {sei te javni} meaning.

je'e .i va'o ku da tai ma minde .i zo'o ko na stidi tu'a lu sei minde
li'u .i pe'i lo nu minde cu vajni mutce .i .e'o do stidi su'o pa lu'a lo
te cuxna

mi stidi zo'oru'esai di'e

soi/rei/xoi = sei bilga

ei = sei te javni = should/ought to

 

> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals has the
> following text:
>
> "selpa'i uses {.ei} as "should" and {.e'i} as "must" (as in {.e'i mi'o
> denpa .i lo sorpeka pu'o zvati}), I (camgusmis) think that's pretty
> good. The {.e'e} here is obviously out of the question, and I think
> keeping something like "must" is worth it, too, and closer to what we have."

ie .i mi pu cusku la'e di'u .i ku'i pe'i lo cnino smuni be zo .e'i ku
ji'a plixau

ni'o ta'o mi na sai tugni lo du'u la'e zo .e'e na ka'e se junri .i pe'i
prane smuni zo .e'e .i mi nelci mutce .i je'u zo .e'e zo .e'i zmadu lo
ka mi nelci lo se stidi smuni be ce'u kei lo barda .i na mo'u jdice fi
zo .e'i .i ku'i ja'a go'i fi zo .e'e

xu zo'o cajebaku do po'o jbojdicypre

> I don't know what happened to that obvious solution.

xu ja'a danfu .i za'a dai lo ji'a drata cu sidbo

e'i si ei si xoi si sei bilga mi bazu troci lo ka stika lo tatoebas jufra

 

> In any case please don't deprive me of {sei bilga} and {sei te javni}.

xu do birti lo du'u lu sei te javni li'u mapti da'i

javni = x1 is a rule prescribing/mandating/requiring x2 (event/state) within system/community x3.

te javni = x1 (community consisting at least of one person) is required to do x2 under some rule/situation x3

li'a lo te javni be da na roroi bilga da

i JCB pu tugni mi pe ca to ba'a oidai la latro'a cu co'e mi vau u'i toi

[selpa'i]

la gleki cu cusku di'e
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:50:30 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
> ni'o ta'o mi na sai tugni lo du'u la'e zo .e'e na ka'e se junri .i pe'i
> prane smuni zo .e'e .i mi nelci mutce .i je'u zo .e'e zo .e'i zmadu lo
> ka mi nelci lo se stidi smuni be ce'u kei lo barda .i na mo'u jdice fi
> zo .e'i .i ku'i ja'a go'i fi zo .e'e
>
>
> xu zo'o cajebaku do po'o jbojdicypre

sa'e mi ba'o jdice lo du'u ba'e *mi* zanru .i mi na se krali lo ka jdice
lo du'u lo drata be mi cu zanru ma kau

> > In any case please don't deprive me of {sei bilga} and {sei te
> javni}.
>
> xu do birti lo du'u lu sei te javni li'u mapti da'i
>
>
> javni = x1 is a rule prescribing/mandating/requiring x2 (event/state)
> within system/community x3.
> te javni = x1 (community consisting at least of one person) is required
> to do x2 under some rule/situation x3
>
> li'a lo te javni be da na roroi bilga da

je'e .i mi na se bitygau

[la gleki]

xu mutce vajni

i ta'onaisai lo si'o minde cu vajni zmadu lo si'o bilga ja lo si'o terjavni ja lo simsa

i mi ca stidi tu'a lo me'oi CV cmavo i mu'a zo xoi ja zo soi ja zo rei

i zo e'i mutce ba'u clani valsi

[Betsemes]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i mi ca stidi tu'a lo me'oi CV cmavo i mu'a zo xoi ja zo soi ja zo rei
>
> i zo e'i mutce ba'u clani valsi

Available cmavo:
bo'a
bo'e
bo'i
bo'o
bo'u
ci'a
ja'u
po'a
te'i

mu'o mi'e betsemes

[la arxokuna]

.a'unai

i zo rei na se pilno to zo xei zasti toi iseki'ubo mi stidi tu'a zo rei i ji'a se bacru simsa zo ei i ji'a tordu

lo nu minde cu mutce vajni

.i ko se senva lo nu lo jenmi be fi yyyy lo nu fagri damba (to li'a lo da'i Jbogu'e cu panpi gugde toi)

i lo damba cu da'i nitcu lo mutce tordu valsi lo nu minde

iseki'u bo mi na'ei nelci zo e'i

i li'a ji'a lo drata je purci smuni be zo e'i cu zasti

[Betsemes]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM, la arxokuna
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i zo rei na se pilno

Do you mean changing its jbovlaste meaning? http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/rei

Should we scrap all the hexadecimal digits; dau, fei, gai, jau, rei,
vai? Have they never been used?

[la arxokuna]

xu do pu viska zo xei

[Betsemes]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM, la arxokuna
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> xu do pu viska zo xei

Okay, so xei is being used instead of rei to mean fourteen. According
to http://dag.github.io/cll/4/2/, those cmavo beginning with "x" are
reserved for experimental use, so I see xei is experimental. But what
to do with "xei" once a substitute for "rei" is officially approved to
mean 14? Maybe pick one of those I listed on my mail before? Or maybe,
the use of those "xVV" cmavo is now more permanent, is it?

[la arxokuna]

{rei}  may indeed lead to confusion with {re} as they are both numbers. So speaking in terms of practicism {xei} is preferable.

But then {rei} is useless. Let's look at the corpus: http://www.lojban.org/corpus/search/rei

I could count only 5 (!) real usages of {rei}. So why bother? In the corpus we have many more occurrencies of other words that have never been properly defined and/or entered into jvs.

As for commands I'm sure it's an utterly important thing.

So using rei for command imperatives and {reinai} for prohibitives would be nice (of course {xoi} can also be used but {rei} reminds of {.ei} so ...)

Also the sound [r] has subliminal impression of resoluteness in many languages.

Three-syllable cmavo cluster for prohibitives would be too verbose.

the CLL was written 16 years ago. Such words as {xo'e}, {xo'o}, {xa'o} are used many more times than some even one-syllable cmavo.

So although officially {xo'e} is experimental it's de facto one of the key concepts of the language. The same for the other two xV'V.

For me {.e'i}=to have to

{.ei} = should/ought to

May be experts in English can explain later the difference between them but I'm pretty sure I can feel it. So I don't want to lose those two meanings.

mu'o mi'e la gleki arxokuna

[Betsemes]

Just for the record and just in case; I'm being inquisitive only. I
just am asking questions. I consider the topic of commands, a topic of
importance; so I don't want it to just die away without a proper
conclusion as it seemed to be happening. I want a solution. I'm not
being confrontational.

Also, I paused replying to this discussion for a few days to learn the
lojban words the fluents were introducing, something I'm still doing,
because I'm not fluent yet. That's why I insisted on replying in my
non-native English.

That said, back to topic.

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:45 AM, la arxokuna
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> {rei} may indeed lead to confusion with {re} as they are both numbers. So
> speaking in terms of practicism {xei} is preferable.
> But then {rei} is useless. Let's look at the corpus:
> http://www.lojban.org/corpus/search/rei
> I could count only 5 (!) real usages of {rei}. So why bother? In the corpus
> we have many more occurrencies of other words that have never been properly
> defined and/or entered into jvs.

I have already seen the poor usage of {rei}.

> As for commands I'm sure it's an utterly important thing.

> So using rei for command imperatives and {reinai} for prohibitives ...

What are prohibitives? At face value it sounds like: "reinai ko broda"
(I forbid you to do/be broda). Is this what it means. As I guess it
is, it's just a command for not doing something, and thus pointless.
Could you enlighten me?

> would be
> nice (of course {xoi} can also be used but {rei} reminds of {.ei} so ...)
> Also the sound [r] has subliminal impression of resoluteness in many
> languages.
> Three-syllable cmavo cluster for prohibitives would be too verbose.
>
> the CLL was written 16 years ago. Such words as {xo'e}, {xo'o}, {xa'o} are
> used many more times than some even one-syllable cmavo.
> So although officially {xo'e} is experimental it's de facto one of the key
> concepts of the language. The same for the other two xV'V.

If you care for my opinion on experimentals, I'd say the concept of
them for a human language is impractical. It may sound good for
another matter, but I see human languages as living things. Once a
language is absorbed into an individual, it becomes alive. So a word
already assimilated and used is hard to unlearn as surely as a wounded
organism will attempt to heal.

> For me {.e'i}=to have to
> {.ei} = should/ought to

So then, how a cmavo for commands would be defined?

rei attitudinal: command - ????

[tijlan]

On 26 May 2013 05:45, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me {.e'i}=to have to
> {.ei} = should/ought to
>
> May be experts in English can explain later the difference between them but I'm pretty sure I can feel it. So I don't want to lose those two meanings.

Could this be an example?

"Apple doesn't have to pay taxes (no legal constraint), but they ought to (ethical obligation)."

mu'o

[la arxokuna]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:04:07 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:

Just for the record and just in case; I'm being inquisitive only. I
just am asking questions. I consider the topic of commands, a topic of
importance; so I don't want it to just die away without a proper
conclusion as it seemed to be happening. I want a solution. I'm not
being confrontational.

u'i mi si'a do jegi na'e damba gi na'e pevdamba

i e'u mi'o damba lo po'o fagri poi jelgau lo ricfoi

Also, I paused replying to this discussion for a few days to learn the
lojban words the fluents were introducing, something I'm still doing,
because I'm not fluent yet. That's why I insisted on replying in my
non-native English.

That said, back to topic.

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:45 AM, la arxokuna
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> {rei}  may indeed lead to confusion with {re} as they are both numbers. So
> speaking in terms of practicism {xei} is preferable.
> But then {rei} is useless. Let's look at the corpus:
> http://www.lojban.org/corpus/search/rei
> I could count only 5 (!) real usages of {rei}. So why bother? In the corpus
> we have many more occurrencies of other words that have never been properly
> defined and/or entered into jvs.

I have already seen the poor usage of {rei}.

Where?

 

> As for commands I'm sure it's an utterly important thing.
> So using rei for command imperatives and {reinai} for prohibitives ...

What are prohibitives? At face value it sounds like: "reinai ko broda"
(I forbid you to do/be broda). Is this what it means. As I guess it
is, it's just a command for not doing something, and thus pointless.
Could you enlighten me?

Yes, for me it's just [COMMAND]-nai.

> would be
> nice (of course {xoi} can also be used but {rei} reminds of {.ei} so ...)
> Also the sound [r] has subliminal impression of resoluteness in many
> languages.
> Three-syllable cmavo cluster for prohibitives would be too verbose.
>
> the CLL was written 16 years ago. Such words as {xo'e}, {xo'o}, {xa'o} are
> used many more times than some even one-syllable cmavo.
> So although officially {xo'e} is experimental it's de facto one of the key
> concepts of the language. The same for the other two xV'V.

If you care for my opinion on experimentals, I'd say the concept of
them for a human language is impractical. It may sound good for
another matter, but I see human languages as living things. Once a
language is absorbed into an individual, it becomes alive. So a word
already assimilated and used is hard to unlearn as surely as a wounded
organism will attempt to heal.

Sure. {e'i}  has already assimilated into me. That's why I don't wanna relearn.

As for {rei} I'm sure I'll never use it as we have {xei} (whether i'll use {xei} is another question :), not a very important word but still we need words for hexadecimal numbers).

> For me {.e'i}=to have to
> {.ei} = should/ought to

So then, how a cmavo for commands would be defined?

rei attitudinal: command - ????

I suppose "command - command not to do".

The second one is called prohibitive but I can't define it as a prohibition as the latter has several meanings.

[Betsemes]

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:38 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have already seen the poor usage of {rei}.
>
> Where?

In a corpus search.

>> What are prohibitives? At face value it sounds like: "reinai ko broda"
>> (I forbid you to do/be broda). Is this what it means. As I guess it
>> is, it's just a command for not doing something, and thus pointless.
>> Could you enlighten me?
>
> Yes, for me it's just [COMMAND]-nai.

So {reinai ko broda) = {rei ko na broda} Hmmm, I think it's as
pointless as the current meaning of {e'onai}.

>> So then, how a cmavo for commands would be defined?
>>
>> rei attitudinal: command - ????
>
> I suppose "command - command not to do".
> The second one is called prohibitive but I can't define it as a prohibition
> as the latter has several meanings.

How about this? "command - obedience optional"

Now I have a question. May a suggestion be called "obedience optional"
and be stated as a command? If so, then that's {e'u}, but {e'u} is
paired with "warning". Personally, I think there is a difference
between "obedience optional" and "suggestion". I cannot precisely
explain it, I just feel it.

[la arxokuna]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:10:54 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:38 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have already seen the poor usage of {rei}.
>
> Where?

In a corpus search.

>> What are prohibitives? At face value it sounds like: "reinai ko broda"
>> (I forbid you to do/be broda). Is this what it means. As I guess it
>> is, it's just a command for not doing something, and thus pointless.
>> Could you enlighten me?
>
> Yes, for me it's just [COMMAND]-nai.

So {reinai ko broda) = {rei ko na broda} Hmmm, I think it's as
pointless as the current meaning of {e'onai}.

In case of doubts we should always  change back to {sei broda}.

{*rei=sei minde}

I hope someone can make the full list of translations.

Because sometimes {nai} acts like {to'e}, sometimes like {na'ei}.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:30 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:10:54 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:38 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have already seen the poor usage of {rei}.
>
> Where?

In a corpus search.

>> What are prohibitives? At face value it sounds like: "reinai ko broda"
>> (I forbid you to do/be broda). Is this what it means. As I guess it
>> is, it's just a command for not doing something, and thus pointless.
>> Could you enlighten me?
>
> Yes, for me it's just [COMMAND]-nai.

So {reinai ko broda) = {rei ko na broda} Hmmm, I think it's as
pointless as the current meaning of {e'onai}.

In case of doubts we should always  change back to {sei broda}.

{*rei=sei minde}

I hope someone can make the full list of translations.

Because sometimes {nai} acts like {to'e}, sometimes like {na'ei}.

Why are you using an experimental cmavo that means the same thing as na without the logical negation?

 

>> So then, how a cmavo for commands would be defined?
>>
>> rei attitudinal: command - ????
>
> I suppose "command - command not to do".
> The second one is called prohibitive but I can't define it as a prohibition
> as the latter has several meanings.

How about this? "command - obedience optional"

Now I have a question. May a suggestion be called "obedience optional"
and be stated as a command? If so, then that's {e'u}, but {e'u} is
paired with "warning". Personally, I think there is a difference
between "obedience optional" and "suggestion". I cannot precisely
explain it, I just feel it.

mu'o mi'e betsemes

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Betsemes]

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:30 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case of doubts we should always change back to {sei broda}.
>
> {*rei=sei minde}
>
> I hope someone can make the full list of translations.
>
> Because sometimes {nai} acts like {to'e}, sometimes like {na'ei}.

Okay, I'll make my non-linguistic try.

{rei = sei minde}
{reinai = sei to'e minde}

Now what is an antonym of command? Here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/command
we it says:

Main Entry: command [kuh-mand, -mahnd] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
...
Antonyms: contradiction, countermand, opposition, recall, reversal, revocation

So based on this, I may say {to'e minde} is "countermand".

So maybe:
rei: command - obedience optional - countermand

Thoughts? Comments?

[la arxokuna]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:48:23 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:30 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:10:54 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:38 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have already seen the poor usage of {rei}.
>
> Where?

In a corpus search.

>> What are prohibitives? At face value it sounds like: "reinai ko broda"
>> (I forbid you to do/be broda). Is this what it means. As I guess it
>> is, it's just a command for not doing something, and thus pointless.
>> Could you enlighten me?
>
> Yes, for me it's just [COMMAND]-nai.

So {reinai ko broda) = {rei ko na broda} Hmmm, I think it's as
pointless as the current meaning of {e'onai}.

In case of doubts we should always  change back to {sei broda}.

{*rei=sei minde}

I hope someone can make the full list of translations.

Because sometimes {nai} acts like {to'e}, sometimes like {na'ei}.

Why are you using an experimental cmavo that means the same thing as na without the logical negation?

Ok ok . May be it's just {na} . I don't know. I just wish we had jbo => translations of all UI including negated ones.

[la arxokuna]

Now much better.

As for other UInai I'm sutre even the authors didn't understand what they could mean.

I hope I'm mistaken.

[John E Clifford]

One of the fatal consequences of shifting negation from prenex to wherever the Hell you want to put i has been that we often have no idea what is being negated.  That seems to be the case with UInai.  Alas, both obvious possibilities have clear cases of being what is needed and clear cases of what is just nonsensical, and a vast majority mof cases where either would work and be useful but there is no good argument for one rather than the other.  The tendency seems to be to treat them all alike and hide the ridiculous cases as best you can, but, since matters started off with some going one way and some the other, it is not clear which way to treat them all.  (Of course, it is not clear that all UI need the possibility of a negation around, but that is too radical a notion to get much traction.)

---

From: la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Robin retry: commands.

[MorphemeAddict]

I would much prefer a different example, one that doesn't say paying taxes is an ethical obligation. 

stevo

--