Imperative mi'o?

[kosmikc...@gmail.com]

Say you were at a dinner with some Lojbanic friends.  You and your significant other must leave early for whatever reason.  You want to look at him/her and say "mi'o klama" so that all listening know that you mean just yourself and your partner.  But at the same time, you want it to come across as an imperative "ko klama".

 

How would you handle this?  mi'oko?  Can you make personal sumka'i other than "do" imperative?  (eg: do'oko, ma'ako etc?)

 

Or would you just decide that it's foolish to take the imperative with your significant other and instead say ".e'o mi'o klama"?

 

.i'o ki'e rodo

 

mu'o mi'e neit

[Jonathan Jones]

You can define who you are addressing with {doi}, so I imagine {doi mi'o ko klama} would mean what you want.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 )

[la durka]

I think that {mi .e ko klama} would mean something like "I am going, come with me." There is the experimental {ko'oi}, which postulates that {ko} = {do ko'oi}, so you could say {mi'o ko'oi} for a collective imperative. You could also just use some weaker UI such as {e'o}, {e'u}.

mu'o mi'e durka

[Gleki Arxokuna]

{doi mi'o ko klama} as la .aionys. just suggested or {mi'o ko'oi klama}.

{mi'o e'u klama} is what you would probably choose.

{e'u} is more specific than {ko'oi}.

{ko'oi} is generic an imperative/hortative attitudinal and covers not only commands, but suggestions, desire, hope, obligation, permission.

--

[Alex Burka]

{ko'oi} is generic an imperative/hortative attitudinal and covers not only commands, but suggestions, desire, hope, obligation, permission.

Actually I'm a little confused about that. How can {ko'oi} be so broad if {ko} = {do ko'oi} as per the ko'oi proposed definition? Is {ko} also that broad? 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/jozM2T1ozaY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

On 4/16/2014 12:37 PM, kosmikc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Say you were at a dinner with some Lojbanic friends. You and your
> significant other must leave early for whatever reason. You want to
> look at him/her and say "mi'o klama" so that all listening know that you
> mean just yourself and your partner. But at the same time, you want it
> to come across as an imperative "ko klama".
> How would you handle this? mi'oko?

ko goi mi'o,
or ideally
doi mi'o [do'u] ko klama
since ko is supposed to be formally defined as the referent of any
operative doi clause.

lojbab

[.neit.]

So I gather the following summary in answer (in no particular order):

 

1)  Specify to whom {ko} refers in the same way you would specify to whom {do} refers - using {doi} and it's vocative family

2)  Logically connect the sumti {mi .e ko klama}

3)  Use the experimental {ko'oi} such that {zo ko du lu do ko'oi li'u}

4)  Assign {ko} as though it were an assignable sumka'i using {goi}

 

mi ckire fo lo rodo sidju

 

I tend to prefer #1.  I don't recall reading that {ko} works as an assignable sumka'i, so I hesitate to use 4).  I'm still learning the language, and I'm teaching my wife and 4 and 7 year-old sons, so as a personal preference I'm avoiding the use of experimental valsi until we all have a better command of the language, so 3)'s out.  Logical connection looks like a good solution and adds the flexability of connectives to imperatives {ko .u mi nitcu klama caku} (heh.  ma xe fanva zoi .gy. save yourself! .gy. la lojban).  Similarly, assigning {ko} like you would {do} seems similarly flexible. 

 

I'll go with 1) and 2), and perhaps expand to 3) later.

 

Thanks again for your answers!

 

mi'e .neit. mu'o

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-04-24 19:42 GMT+04:00 .neit. <kosmikc...@gmail.com>:

So I gather the following summary in answer (in no particular order):

 

1)  Specify to whom {ko} refers in the same way you would specify to whom {do} refers - using {doi} and it's vocative family

2)  Logically connect the sumti {mi .e ko klama}

I dont think 2) is correct at all. It states that I go, no command towards me is present.

 

3)  Use the experimental {ko'oi} such that {zo ko du lu do ko'oi li'u}

4)  Assign {ko} as though it were an assignable sumka'i using {goi}

 

mi ckire fo lo rodo sidju

 

I tend to prefer #1.  I don't recall reading that {ko} works as an assignable sumka'i, so I hesitate to use 4).  I'm still learning the language, and I'm teaching my wife and 4 and 7 year-old sons, so as a personal preference I'm avoiding the use of experimental valsi until we all have a better command of the language, so 3)'s out.  Logical connection looks like a good solution and adds the flexability of connectives to imperatives {ko .u mi nitcu klama caku} (heh.  ma xe fanva zoi .gy. save yourself! .gy. la lojban).  Similarly, assigning {ko} like you would {do} seems similarly flexible. 

 

I'll go with 1) and 2), and perhaps expand to 3) later.

 

Thanks again for your answers!

 

mi'e .neit. mu'o

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:37:48 PM UTC-4, .neit. wrote:

Say you were at a dinner with some Lojbanic friends.  You and your significant other must leave early for whatever reason.  You want to look at him/her and say "mi'o klama" so that all listening know that you mean just yourself and your partner.  But at the same time, you want it to come across as an imperative "ko klama".

 

How would you handle this?  mi'oko?  Can you make personal sumka'i other than "do" imperative?  (eg: do'oko, ma'ako etc?)

 

Or would you just decide that it's foolish to take the imperative with your significant other and instead say ".e'o mi'o klama"?

 

.i'o ki'e rodo

 

mu'o mi'e neit

--

[Alex Burka]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

2014-04-24 19:42 GMT+04:00 .neit. <kosmikc...@gmail.com>:

So I gather the following summary in answer (in no particular order):

 

1)  Specify to whom {ko} refers in the same way you would specify to whom {do} refers - using {doi} and it's vocative family

2)  Logically connect the sumti {mi .e ko klama}

I dont think 2) is correct at all. It states that I go, no command towards me is present.

.ieru'e je'a gendra gi'u smudra 

 

3)  Use the experimental {ko'oi} such that {zo ko du lu do ko'oi li'u}

4)  Assign {ko} as though it were an assignable sumka'i using {goi}

 

mi ckire fo lo rodo sidju

na gendra. To nitpick, you wanted {fi}, and I think you dropped a {nu}. 

 

I tend to prefer #1.  I don't recall reading that {ko} works as an assignable sumka'i, so I hesitate to use 4).

Searching at alexburka.com/~danr I find 5 uses of {ko goi}, all on IRC, but 2 of them are nonsense and the other 3 are queries to the parser-bot. There are 4 results for {goi ko}, all of which are real sentences, for example {lo gerku goi ko bajra}. So, the usage parses, and was said at least once on the Internet, but yes it's a strange and rare production. Probably {doi gerku ko bajra} is more readily understood (and shorter!). 

I'm still learning the language, and I'm teaching my wife and 4 and 7 year-old sons,

.ue .iosai 

so as a personal preference I'm avoiding the use of experimental valsi until we all have a better command of the language, so 3)'s out.  Logical connection looks like a good solution and adds the flexability of connectives to imperatives {ko .u mi nitcu klama caku} (heh.  ma xe fanva zoi .gy. save yourself! .gy. la lojban).

{.iicai ko nurxru ko} 

Similarly, assigning {ko} like you would {do} seems similarly flexible. 

 

I'll go with 1) and 2), and perhaps expand to 3) later.

.i'e 

 

Thanks again for your answers!

 

mi'e .neit. mu'o

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:37:48 PM UTC-4, .neit. wrote:

Say you were at a dinner with some Lojbanic friends.  You and your significant other must leave early for whatever reason.  You want to look at him/her and say "mi'o klama" so that all listening know that you mean just yourself and your partner.  But at the same time, you want it to come across as an imperative "ko klama".

 

How would you handle this?  mi'oko?  Can you make personal sumka'i other than "do" imperative?  (eg: do'oko, ma'ako etc?)

 

Or would you just decide that it's foolish to take the imperative with your significant other and instead say ".e'o mi'o klama"?

 

.i'o ki'e rodo

 

mu'o mi'e neit

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/jozM2T1ozaY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[.neit.]

I dont think 2) is correct at all. It states that I go, no command towards me is present.

.ieru'e je'a gendra gi'u smudra 

.u'esai xaugensku   Most of my understanding of Lojban is an exercise in the execution of book knowledge.  My activity here over the past few days comprises my only experience thus far of Lojban "in the wild" where people actually use it to express themselves.  I find it surprising at times.  Especially in cases like the above phrase, which would be a mouthful bau la gleki.  

3)  Use the experimental {ko'oi} such that {zo ko du lu do ko'oi li'u}

4)  Assign {ko} as though it were an assignable sumka'i using {goi}

 

mi ckire fo lo rodo sidju

na gendra. To nitpick, you wanted {fi}, and I think you dropped a {nu}. 

.u'i .i mi ckire do lo mu'e do drani fi lo mi cusku  Please, nitpick away.  That's half my reason I came out of my lojbanic ivory tower. Learning is all about trial and error.  Which means to learn, I must try, and I must err.  If I don't see my error, then my trying will have been wasted.  So again, thanks!

 

I tend to prefer #1.  I don't recall reading that {ko} works as an assignable sumka'i, so I hesitate to use 4).

Searching at alexburka.com/~danr I find 5 uses of {ko goi}, all on IRC, but 2 of them are nonsense and the other 3 are queries to the parser-bot. There are 4 results for {goi ko}, all of which are real sentences, for example {lo gerku goi ko bajra}. So, the usage parses, and was said at least once on the Internet, but yes it's a strange and rare production. Probably {doi gerku ko bajra} is more readily understood (and shorter!). 

I'm still learning the language, and I'm teaching my wife and 4 and 7 year-old sons,

.ue .iosai 

so as a personal preference I'm avoiding the use of experimental valsi until we all have a better command of the language, so 3)'s out.  Logical connection looks like a good solution and adds the flexability of connectives to imperatives {ko .u mi nitcu klama caku} (heh.  ma xe fanva zoi .gy. save yourself! .gy. la lojban).

{.iicai ko nurxru ko} 

zo nurxru .u'e  Again, a connection I wouldn't have made with my current command of the lojbanic vocabulary.  Schweet. 

Thanks again for the help!  This is just what I need!

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-04-25 15:07 GMT+04:00 .neit. <kosmikc...@gmail.com>:

.u'esai xaugensku   Most of my understanding of Lojban is an exercise in the execution of book knowledge.  My activity here over the past few days comprises my only experience thus far of Lojban "in the wild" where people actually use it to express themselves.  I find it surprising at times.  Especially in cases like the above phrase, which would be a mouthful bau la gleki.  

{bau la gleki} implise a language named "gleki".

I think what you wanted is something like {ma'i la gleki} (from the viewpoint of la gleki) or {fi'o jinvi la gleki} (in la gleki's opinion)

[Dan Rosén]

Ok, here are some more nitpicks, then:

> .u'esai xaugensku  

It is so that {xaugensku} falls apart as the two words {xau gensku}. This phenomena is called {tosmabru}: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tosmabru

> .u'i .i mi ckire do lo mu'e do drani fi lo mi cusku

You want to use {dragau}, and {lo se cusku}.

I would use {ka} in ckire3: {mi do ckire lo ka dragau lo se cusku be mi}.

mi'e .danr. ko banli mu'o

[.neit.]

{bau la gleki} implise a language named "gleki".

I think what you wanted is something like {ma'i la gleki} (from the viewpoint of la gleki) or {fi'o jinvi la gleki} (in la gleki's opinion)

 

*spews morning coffee*  .u'icai  No.  I actually wanted zo glico, and since I'm still learning the vocab, I guess I got my "gl" synapses crossed up there!  (heh.  I guess I was actually talking about YOUR language pei .ie doi .gleki.) so how about this:

 

... bau la gleki si glico

 

That being said...  da poi lujvo zo'u da du zo gliban.  (... I'll see soon enough if that prenex floats with rodo).  At any rate, I heard a word, "gliban," before I had learned of lujvo, rafsi, or the specific rafsi "gli" and "ban".  But upon mentioning "gl" synapses above, zo gliban popped into my head again.  zo gliban was meaningless to me then.  .iku'ibo knowing what I know now, I presume then that "la gliban" refers to the english language?  If so - then THAT's what I really wanted.  "bau la gliban"

 

Phew!  Thanks.  It was good to hear lo se jinvi be la gleki  (the REAL "la gleki")

[.neit.]

.uasai  When I read through CLL (Ch 4, Sec 11), I recall being confused as to what "tosmabru failure" even was.  Re-reading it now, I suppose I could have inferred the meaning of tosmabru failure from step 5c) in the aforementioned section, but it didn't occur to me then.  And now I finally see why you'd want to perform the tosmabru test right to left rather than left to right.  That also confused me upon my initial reading.  I suppose also that it does not matter that zo xau is not a cmavo, it's a rafsi, and therefore cannot be off on its own.  One could guess then that zo xau should be attached - but I believe that's just the issue.  A parser (human or machine) should not have to "guess" whether zo xau belongs with zo gensku, or if it is its own word.  The point is that zo xau follows the CVV form of a cmavo, and therefore would be parsed as a cmavo...

 

Pardon me for rambling, all these pieces are just now clicking as I type them...

 

As for your other comment:  That makes sense.  lo'u do drani le'u states that you are-the-thing-that-is-right.  Which is how we say it bau la gliban vau .ui  I can see that the correct usage bau la lojban is dragau, zo gasnu as lo tertau makes the lujvo's x1 an agent.  See this is what I hoped for in coming to this forum.  I figured if I fumbled around here long enough you guys would iron lo malgli out of me .i'o

 

On that note, I can also see how "lo se cusku be mi" is stronger than the malgli way of using possessives for everything (lo mi cusku).

 

As for {ka} in {ckire 3}...  This I can also see, and I don't disagree.  But perhaps you could help clear up some (more) confusion?  Given that Lojban makes no distictiton between doing and being ("mi dunda" means both "I give" and "I am a giver"), what is the distinction between a property and an event?  Is it a subjective matter of "how I want to express this particular thing," or is there an objective distinction?

 

Phew again! 

 

As always, thanks for all the help!

[Dan Rosén]

> That being said...  da poi lujvo zo'u da du zo gliban.

Though {gliban} is not a lujvo, it is a cmevla. The common lujvo for English is {glibau}.

>  I suppose also that it does not matter that zo xau is not a cmavo

Well, {xau} is a morphologically a cmavo (so in that sense it is indeed a cmavo), and those of the form xVV and xV'V are for experimental usages (such as {xa'o}, {xo'o}, {xo'e}).
 

> As for your other comment:  That makes sense.  lo'u do drani le'u states
> that you are-the-thing-that-is-right.

Personally, I'm not really sure what can go into drani1, since there is also drani2... It seems that if {lo se cusku be do drani lo ka ce'u broda}, then necessarily {do drani lo ka lo se cusku be ce'u broda}. But I will leave it for other brave souls to show how to correctly use {drani}.

 

> On that note, I can also see how "lo se cusku be mi" is stronger than the
> malgli way of using possessives for everything (lo mi cusku).

Well {lo mi se cusku}, which by definition is the same as {lo se cusku pe mi}, are also fine. What I really wanted to point out was the {se}.

 
> What is the distinction between a property and an event?  Is it a subjective

> matter of "how I want to express this particular thing," or is there an
> objective distinction?

In my opinion, the CLL is a bit confused about properties/{ka}. Some light on the development of {ka} can be found here:

http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/lessacehu.html
    (in particular the sentence "when {ka} was originally invented, {ce'u} didn't exist yet")
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ka,+du'u,+si'o,+ce'u,+zo'e
    (more history)

A current usage of {ka} is summed up in this excellent article by la tsani:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Tsani's+Interpretations:+Abstractors

I suppose la tsani was inspired by la selpa'i, who writes:
    "I'm sure Gua\spi has been an inspiration for those few, courageous, Lojbanists who went ahead and gave Gua\spi a closer look. Not only did it probably inspire the use of {sei}+{ke'a} as a bridi relative clause in Lojban, it also probably helped the {ka}-volution thanks to its very ce'u-esque gismu definitions."
    (buried in a slightly unrelated blog post http://selpahi.weebly.com/9/post/2013/06/recycling-some-coi-cmavo-not-coi-or-coi.html)

Hopefully this might give you an idea about how {ka} is used, at least by some on IRC. My "creti'i" to you is to visit the IRC channel.

mu'o

[.neit.]

doi dan.

 

Thanks for that background!  The first two links really shed some light on the issue for me, but the third link (Tsani's Interpretation) is over my head.  I'll need to practice and learn more before I can wrap my head around that one.

 

As for IRC, I'd love to - but my job won't allow it...  Speaking of my job - I really should get back to it.  I can tell already, posting on the Lojban groups is going to turn into one of those bad habits I need to avoid at work.  zo'obu

 

Thanks again!

 

mi'e .neit. mu'o

[Dan Rosén]

No problems, my pleasure.

Now it's time to nitpick on myself a little bit, too. It's actually not a small nitpick, either:

> ... It seems that if {lo se cusku be do drani lo ka ce'u broda}, then necessarily {do drani lo ka lo se cusku be ce'u broda}

Both these sentences are missing a {cu}.

mu'o