Phone game: TV

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!shoulson>]

>Date:         Mon, 29 Jun 1992 18:19:11 BST
>From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

>Ivan comments on the Phone Game:

>> >  Does it mean "(I forbid this!) You are watching TV",
>> >  or "(I forbid that) you should watch TV"?
>>
>> The first.
>>
>> >  {mi cmima .au le fonxa kelci} - "I want to be a member", or "I am a
>> >  member, and have wanted this"?
>>
>> The second.
>>
>> No interjection can change the meaning of the sentence _I am a member_
>> to `I am not a member' or `I want to be a member'.  And attitudinals
>> are just that, interjections.  They show your evaluation of the fact
>> reported, but don't alter the fact that the fact is reported.

>I agree entirely. [I think I have not followed this in the past, but I
>endorse Ivan's opinion and intend to follow the precept henceforward.
>"ko na tavla .e'anai", not "ko .e'anai tavla", for "don't speak".]

Hmmm.  For the most part, makes sense, but I'm a little unclear on the fine
points.  What would {ko tavla .e'anai} mean?  "Speak! (forbid!)"  I am
commanding you to speak.... what am I forbidding?  Can .e'anai only be used
with negatives?  What about {ko na tavla .e'a}?  "Don't speak!
(permission!)"  I guess this means "I am commanding you not to speak.
Moreover/specifically/something-like-that you are permitted not to speak."
Sounds iffy to me.

>> >  <...> there is something about "until" Ivan left out with "and then":
>> >  -------------------------------> [sit up straight]
>> >  [you're "watching" television"]
>> >
>> >  Sitting up straight is a *condition* for the cessation of [forbidden]
>> >  watching television.
>>
>> Not in Mark's text.  He only said that the telly watching occurs
>> before the beginning of the straight sitting.  No causal link in sight.

>I agree. Pragmatically, we will probably find that we sometimes impute
>causality or concession into our lojban in context, but Ivan is right
>not to put it in here, as it isn't in the Lojban.

Waaah, everyone's ganging up on me, just 'cause I'm wrong... :-)

Actually, I still don't think we really *must* have the causal link.  The
English doesn't have it, nor does it have to be seen as implied.  "So long
as you haven't started sitting up straight (during the time before you
start doing so), you are forbidden from watching TV."  Doesn't imply that
you'll be permitted to watch afterwards, not necessarily.  And just as
well, I might find some other reason to forbid you by then.

~mark