Re: imperatives

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

> > I don't find di'e chain of reasoning unreasonable, pei?
> >
> > I ask you that Kim smiles at you.
> > I ask you that it happens that Kim smiles at you.
> > I ask you to do the best you can for Kim to smile at you.
>
> This is the critical link. First you were asking me that Kim do something,
> and now you are asking me to do something myself, so that something else
> happens.

That's pragmatics for you. :) See, if somebody makes a request from me,
I suppose that I should do my best to make it happen, even if I would
not be a part of the relevant event otherwise. In some cases, there is
very little I can do to bring about the requested event, and in such
situations making requests like that doesn't have much sense in the first
place. But if somebody utters such an expression, this is what I would
understand its meaning to be. There is not much else it could be.

> Asking me that Kim smile at me is like asking me that Kim sneeze.
> The fact that {do} is present as an argument in one case and not in the
> other is accidental. In both cases, I coould take some action to
> bring about the result, but that is not what you are asking in the
> first case, at least not directly.

Not directly, but that's exactly what you are asking. Otherwise, what
else does it mean? People don't say things that they know to be empty
of meaning. (In contrast, politicians make a career out of it.) pe'i
this interpretation is the most logical one.

> Compare:
>
>         doi goran e'o le plise cu cpana do
>         I ask you that the apple be on you.
>
>         doi goran e'o le plise cu cpana le jubme
>         I ask you that the apple be on the table.
>
> They are exactly equivalent sentences. The fact that the first one
> has {do} as one of the arguments is accidental. Those who like using
> {ko} in non-agentive places might want to say {le plise cu cpana ko},
> which is perfectly valid Lojban, but it is just a cheap trick, there
> is no semantic basis to distinguish the two cases of {do} and {le jubme}.

.iecai

1) mi punji le plise le mi stedu
2) mi punji le plise le jubme

Exactly equivalent responses for exactly equivalent requests.

(nu mutce vimcu)
> >
> > Do you really think that in "mi senpi", I am the actor?
>
> You changed from {senci} to {senpi} after the first time.

.oi.ie zo senci

> > pe'i I am a
> > patient. That doesn't stop the king from ordering me not to sneeze, and
> > it makes just as much sense as ordering somebody to be smiled at.
>
> And it makes as much sense as ordering me that pigs fly. My point is
> that the one being ordered need not always be one of the sumti of the
> desired relationship.

.uanai that's what I am saying. zo'o what are we arguing about? I say
this often doesn't make sense, but many things people do make much less
sense that that. Whether something is sensical or not is not pe'i a
relevant criterion; as long as it has meaning, there is somebody out
there waiting for just that to use.

> > That
> > is not under sy. control, or at least not completely, but there is
> > nothing impossible in the request itself, even if its fulfillment
> > logically can not really be expected.
>
> I don't dispute any of what you say. I still think that commands to
> someone other than the agent of an action are strange, even if
> perfectly valid and possible.

zo'onaizo'o I find it strange for people to like coffee (I can't stand
the stuff). I find it equally strange that even people who don't like it
drink it often. But 95% people around me drink coffee. Who am I to
argue?

> Also, I don't think there is any reason other than perhaps frequency
> of use to single out {do} to have an imperative version of its own.

As good a reason as any I've heard...

co'o mi'e. goran.


--
GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++)
UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+)
t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r--
!n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out