Print

Print


Would than include the whole range of obligation (ought to, must, should,
et al.)?

stevo


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You might not need a null subject regardless, Gary. If you extend your
> attitudinals to encompass verb mood, then you can express "let's go" as "we
> should go", "go!" as "you should go!", etc.
> --- larry
>
>
> On 5 February 2014 03:10, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Gleki Arxokuna
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 AM, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ----SNIP----
> > >
> > > In most situations this is not a command but a suggestion, proposal. In
> > > this case Lojban has a bunch of attitudinals (interjections).
> >
> > ---SNIP---
> >
> > I already have attitudinal and emotive particles in Pandári, but it
> > hadn't occurred to me to use them for the imperative. That does sound
> > like a cleaner solution to me! I can also accommodate "Let's go" with
> > such a particle. It will mean an extra production rule to allow a
> > sentence with a null subject, if I decide to allow that.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing that out to me.
> >
> > -gary
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
> can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
>