{ko}, {xa'e}, {.e'u}, {e'o}

[la gleki]

{xa'e} was invented to say such things as "Let's go!" but I prefer using {.e'u mi'o klama}.

So may be if someone has Not-Enough-Gismu syndrome it's better to create a cmavo in UI selmaho?

[Paul Predkiewicz]

but {xa'e} is a rafsi of {xance}, how would you use it to say such things as "let's go"?

2012/8/17 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

{xa'e} was invented to say such things as "Let's go!" but I prefer using {.e'u mi'o klama}.

So may be if someone has Not-Enough-Gismu syndrome it's better to create a cmavo in UI selmaho?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/CI7usJJMmGsJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[la gleki]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:47:13 PM UTC+4, kamisori wrote:

but {xa'e} is a rafsi of {xance}, how would you use it to say such things as "let's go"?

Lojban has many cmavo that are identical to rafsi. They never conflict.

{xa'e mi'o klama} - "let's go!"

{xa'emi'o} can't be a lujvo.

Back to the main point, I *don't* like {xa'e}. Another UI-cmavo would do but I'm comfortable even without it now.

[selpa'i]

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

[Paul Predkiewicz]

hm, ok. then it's simply missing in the cmavo list...

http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo.txt

2012/8/17 selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[la gleki]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 4:52:17 PM UTC+4, kamisori wrote:

hm, ok. then it's simply missing in the cmavo list...

http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo.txt

This cmavo is not official. Use vlasisku.lojban.org 

2012/8/17 selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>

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

--
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.

[la gleki]

{.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

[.arpis.]

That is absolutely false. {ko} is simply the word for an imperative mood, with no other implications; it's not necessarily an order.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/uwcGoYr3b0UJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[MorphemeAddict]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is absolutely false. {ko} is simply the word for an imperative mood, with no other implications; it's not necessarily an order.

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 

[.arpis.]

"Go and take out the trash, will you, honey?" is an imperative. If you tell me that it's also an order, I'll concede that we have different definitions of "order".

[la gleki]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:26:23 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

"Go and take out the trash, will you, honey?" is an imperative. If you tell me that it's also an order, I'll concede that we have different definitions of "order".

It sounds like {.e'o/pe'u} 

[.arpis.]

It is {e'o/pe'u}; it's also {ko}

{ko e'o muvgau lo victerlu'i vi'opei .tit.}

{ko} represents the part of the meaning that indicates that the listener is expected to be active in making the sentence true.

[la gleki]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 11:37:31 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

It is {e'o/pe'u}; it's also {ko}

{ko e'o muvgau lo victerlu'i vi'opei .tit.}

{ko} represents the part of the meaning that indicates that the listener is expected to be active in making the sentence true.

 {do e'o muvgau ...} - is it grammatical?

[.arpis.]

It's grammatical; it means something subtly different and relies on an irrealis interpretation of attitudinals.

[MorphemeAddict]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Go and take out the trash, will you, honey?" is an imperative. If you tell me that it's also an order, I'll concede that we have different definitions of "order".

Okay, I concede that your example is of a request or suggestion, rather than an order, despite its imperative. 

But in general, imperatives and orders overlap a lot. 

OTOH, I know that in Russian, sometimes--especially in the military--orders are given in the infinitive. 

stevo

[la gleki]

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 7:21:06 AM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

It's grammatical; it means something subtly different and relies on an irrealis interpretation of attitudinals.

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:37 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 11:37:31 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

It is {e'o/pe'u}; it's also {ko}

{ko e'o muvgau lo victerlu'i vi'opei .tit.}

{ko} represents the part of the meaning that indicates that the listener is expected to be active in making the sentence true.

 {do e'o muvgau ...} - is it grammatical?

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:26:23 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

"Go and take out the trash, will you, honey?" is an imperative. If you tell me that it's also an order, I'll concede that we have different definitions of "order".

It sounds like {.e'o/pe'u} 

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is absolutely false. {ko} is simply the word for an imperative mood, with no other implications; it's not necessarily an order.

That makes sense.

If {ko} is just an imperative in it's generalized meaning then {.e'o} and {COMMAND} would modify it. It has been already discussed that {ko} probably has no shade of harshness. Which leads to another question:

How to say "{COMMAND/ORDER} ko klama"? Again new cmavo? Or just {le'o}?

One more question, whats the difference between {pe'u do}, {pe'u ko} and {ko .e'o}?

[la gleki]

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 8:30:28 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Go and take out the trash, will you, honey?" is an imperative. If you tell me that it's also an order, I'll concede that we have different definitions of "order".

Okay, I concede that your example is of a request or suggestion, rather than an order, despite its imperative. 

But in general, imperatives and orders overlap a lot. 

OTOH, I know that in Russian, sometimes--especially in the military--orders are given in the infinitive. 

So what? Loglan has this by default. Stupid natlangish one-word=several meanings.

[MorphemeAddict]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:33 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 7:21:06 AM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

It's grammatical; it means something subtly different and relies on an irrealis interpretation of attitudinals.

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:37 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 11:37:31 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

It is {e'o/pe'u}; it's also {ko}

{ko e'o muvgau lo victerlu'i vi'opei .tit.}

{ko} represents the part of the meaning that indicates that the listener is expected to be active in making the sentence true.

 {do e'o muvgau ...} - is it grammatical?

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:26:23 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

"Go and take out the trash, will you, honey?" is an imperative. If you tell me that it's also an order, I'll concede that we have different definitions of "order".

It sounds like {.e'o/pe'u} 

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is absolutely false. {ko} is simply the word for an imperative mood, with no other implications; it's not necessarily an order.

That makes sense.

If {ko} is just an imperative in it's generalized meaning then {.e'o} and {COMMAND} would modify it. It has been already discussed that {ko} probably has no shade of harshness. Which leads to another question:

How to say "{COMMAND/ORDER} ko klama"? Again new cmavo? Or just {le'o}?

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.  

stevo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/uEHyocerN1kJ.

[.arpis.]

That makes sense.

If {ko} is just an imperative in it's generalized meaning then {.e'o} and {COMMAND} would modify it. It has been already discussed that {ko} probably has no shade of harshness. Which leads to another question:

How to say "{COMMAND/ORDER} ko klama"? Again new cmavo? Or just {le'o}?

I wouldn't use {le'o}; I'd lean toward {ga'i}, and possibly {.ei}

One more question, whats the difference between {pe'u do}, {pe'u ko} and {ko .e'o}?

I'm not _sure_, but I'll try. I'd stay away from {pe'u ko} for a similar reason that I stay away from mixing {ko} and {do} in the same bridi; I haven't found a good use for it, and I think it usually causes more confusion than it benefits from the subtleties. {ko .e'o} marks the imperative as a request as opposed to e.g. an order, a suggestion, or an instruction. {pe'u do} is a form I'd avoid, opting to put a name where {do} is.

[.arpis.]

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".

[la gleki]

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".

Your position actually removes the need in any {xa'e} ({.e'o mi'o klama} is what I'd say).

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:33 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which leads to another question:
> How to say "{COMMAND/ORDER} ko klama"? Again new cmavo? Or just {le'o}?

I use ".e'i" for that. See:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Irrealis+Attitudinals

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:40 AM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wait a minute. arpis's example of a request using imperatives was in
> English.

A widely used example in Lojban is ".e'osai ko sarji la lojban".

[la gleki]

Great!

So pragmatically speaking is there any need for {xa'e} or no?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So pragmatically speaking is there any need for {xa'e} or no?

I think of the members of selma'o LAhE as compact forms for "lo broda
be" for some suitable broda. The proposed "xa'e" doesn't conform to
that pattern.

[la gleki]

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:

[.arpis.]

{.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.

[Escape Landsome]

Actually what is the difference between these three utterances ?

(1) {ko catlu ko}

(2) {ko catlu do}

(3) {do catlu ko}

???

[.arpis.]

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.

--
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.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Ross Ogilvie]

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

[Escape Landsome]

Wow, the presence of a mirror really helps you, that's fantastic.
But can you still explain things like that for, say :

(1) {do guska ko} vs {ko guska do} vs {ko guska ko}

(2) {do catra ko} vs {ko catra do} vs {ko catra ko}

?

[v4hn]

coi

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}

[Escape Landsome]

What do you mean exactly ?

That I should kill me but specifically die, the killing part being not
so important ?

[.arpis.]

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."

--
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.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[v4hn]

You're talking about {.i do catra ko}, I presume.

Maybe it's not important in the command, yes.
If you think it is equally important, then just use {ko} only
and don't mix {ko} and {do}?

Imagine the following scenario:

For some obscure reason you have to kill someone.
There's no way around it and you can't do anything about it.
You just got to kill someone.

and you tell someone {.i ei mi ba catra zo'e} (the zo'e
meaning "anyone" in this context as the "any" discussion is
still going on..)

Your dialog partner will probably be shocked and, if he's sure
he can't convince you of not doing it, might say something like

{.i e'o do catra ko} meaning
"Make yourself the one who you kill."

just some ideas...


v4hn