{ko} and {do} with .a-/.e- attitudinals

[mudri]

Should {ko} be used in sentences marked with {.e'o}? It's something I see often (and usually do myself), but {do} is generally used with {.e'u} in particular. My thought was that, because attitudinals beginning with "a" and "e" (and some "i") show that the marked text is a hypothetical assertion, not a real one, using {do} would be the correct thing for the hypothetical world (in which la'e {do} is actually doing what is said in the sentence). .iepei

[Ian Johnson]

I consider it to be:
ko > .e'o ko > .e'o do
in intensity, with {.e'u} being sort of orthogonal to {.e'o} and {.e'u ko} being kinda weird.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:23 PM, mudri <jammya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Should {ko} be used in sentences marked with {.e'o}? It's something I see often (and usually do myself), but {do} is generally used with {.e'u} in particular. My thought was that, because attitudinals beginning with "a" and "e" (and some "i") show that the marked text is a hypothetical assertion, not a real one, using {do} would be the correct thing for the hypothetical world (in which la'e {do} is actually doing what is said in the sentence). .iepei

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/TvcWQD5E-v0J.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[guskant]

Le samedi 17 novembre 2012 09:23:29 UTC+9, mudri a écrit :
> Should {ko} be used in sentences marked with {.e'o}? It's something I see often (and usually do myself), but {do} is generally used with {.e'u} in particular. My thought was that, because attitudinals beginning with "a" and "e" (and some "i") show that the marked text is a hypothetical assertion, not a real one, using {do} would be the correct thing for the hypothetical world (in which la'e {do} is actually doing what is said in the sentence). .iepei

{do} may be a hypothetical one as well as a real one, depending on the context. For example,
ganai do da'i morsi ginai mi jbena
The whole sentence may be true even if {do na morsi}.

{ko} and {do} are defined as follows:
ko sumka'i le tersku noi le cusku cu minde ja cpedu le nu ke'a gasnu la'e le selsku
do sumka'i le tersku

The difference is only the part after {noi}, which adds the speaker's attitude of {minde ja cpedu}.

"{ko} with {.e'o}" means therefore "{do} with the speaker's attitudes {minde ja cpedu} and {.e'o}". Because {.e'o} is an attitudinal of {cpedu}, it means "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {minde ja cpedu je cpedu}", which is equal to "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {cpedu}".
"{do} with {.e'o}" also means "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {cpedu}".
"{ko} with {.e'o}" and "{do} with {.e'o}" have therefore the same meaning.

{.e'u} is an attitudinal of {stidi}. "{ko} with {.e'u}" means, with the same procedure, "{do} with the speaker's attitudes of {minde ja cpedu je stidi}". On the other hand, "{do} with {.e'u}" means only "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {stidi}", which is clearly different from the meaning of "{ko} with {.e'u}". Both are acceptable, and the speaker needs to select one of them depending on one's attitude.

In my opinion, however, the definition of {ko} should include also the attitudes of {curmi}, {pacna}, {stidi}, {djica}, {bilga}, because imperative expressions in natural languages include them. If so, "{ko} with {.e'u}" and "{do} with {.e'u}" would have the same meaning.

[guskant]

Le mardi 20 novembre 2012 01:44:52 UTC+9, guskant a écrit :

Le samedi 17 novembre 2012 09:23:29 UTC+9, mudri a écrit :
> Should {ko} be used in sentences marked with {.e'o}? It's something I see often (and usually do myself), but {do} is generally used with {.e'u} in particular. My thought was that, because attitudinals beginning with "a" and "e" (and some "i") show that the marked text is a hypothetical assertion, not a real one, using {do} would be the correct thing for the hypothetical world (in which la'e {do} is actually doing what is said in the sentence). .iepei



{do} may be a hypothetical one as well as a real one, depending on the context. For example,
ganai do da'i morsi ginai mi jbena
The whole sentence may be true even if {do na morsi}.

{ko} and {do} are defined as follows:
ko sumka'i le tersku noi le cusku cu minde ja cpedu le nu ke'a gasnu la'e le selsku
do sumka'i le tersku

The difference is only the part after {noi}, which adds the speaker's attitude of {minde ja cpedu}.

"{ko} with {.e'o}" means therefore "{do} with the speaker's attitudes {minde ja cpedu} and {.e'o}". Because {.e'o} is an attitudinal of {cpedu}, it means "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {minde ja cpedu je cpedu}", which is equal to "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {cpedu}".

Logically thinking, I realized that {minde ja cpedu je cpedu} is not equal to {cpedu} but to {minde je cpedu ja cpedu}. I mean "(order OR request) AND request" is equal to "(order AND request) OR (request AND request)", or shortly "(order AND request) OR request".

 

"{do} with {.e'o}" also means "{do} with the speaker's attitude of {cpedu}".
"{ko} with {.e'o}" and "{do} with {.e'o}" have therefore the same meaning.

Comparing {do .e'o}, {ko .e'o} and {ko},

{do .e'o} = "you with the speaker's attitude of request",

{ko .e'o} = "you with the speaker's attitude of ((order AND request) OR request)",

{ko} = "you with the speaker's attitude of (order OR request)".

I conclude that {do .e'o} means pure request only, while {ko .e'o} has broader meaning that may imply also "order AND request", and {ko} has still broader meaning that may imply also pure order.

I drew a Venn diagram on my conlclusion:

http://guskant.github.com/lojbo/mindecpedu.svg

[Michael Turniansky]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:33 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logically thinking, I realized that {minde ja cpedu je cpedu} is not equal to {cpedu} but to {minde je cpedu ja cpedu}. I mean "(order OR request) AND request" is equal to "(order AND request) OR (request AND request)", or shortly "(order AND request) OR request".

 

  Or, to put it another way, cpedu ju minde

       --gjeyspa

[guskant]

.ie 

and I've just made my diagram more comprehensive: 

http://guskant.github.com/lojbo/mindecpedu.svg