Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:47:05 -0800
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type;        b=OpNzPTiFINJ3YYvJGnonlTjonGpuLKe9zppq34NxOHSYjqnRtCohdk6PcNl4KPRbKb         yCE/Vin21Jt3tnWtENXgkcJ7dXNsjuotDws3aF5S1PL2YkIo63+dIEOY5syP4/X/5ntA         Md8yputul69tUr6wXw+vkm2eeFtvJCkMLJPsw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <783860.88389.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <783860.88389.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:45:18 -0500
Message-ID: <96f789a60912161145l65ed1dbbled03d08fd64a4421@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Proposed lujvo
From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1262
Lines: 47

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
> Comments please,
>
>
> 1) zanpa'a(optimistic)
>
> p1 is optimistic about p2 (event) with regard to z2, with expected likelihood p3 (0-1)
>
> 2) malpa'a(pessimistic)
>
> p1 is pessimistic about p2 (event) with regard to m2, with expected likelihood p3 (0-1)
>

   1&2:   Isn't pacna always optimistic by nature?  hope/wish
for/desire doesn't sound very neutral to me.  Also, please explain how
z2(m2) would be used here, as contrasted with p2?


> 3) xlamukpa'a (cynical)
>
> p1 is cynical about the motives of m3 with regard to action/event m2
>

  Same comment as above.  I'd think cynical would be more xlamu'ixu'a,
or xlamu'ijijnu or xlamukcni an assertion/intuition/feeling that
someone has a "bad" motive, not a hope that they do.


> 4) raxyxajmi(sardonic)
>
> x1=r1 is sardonic in property/aspect x2=r3

  That isn't x2=r3, it's x3=r3.  However, there can also be a
x2(=r2??) place for the person to who finds it sardonic.

> 5) tradutxu'a(hypocritical)
>
> x1=t1 is hypocritical about t2 (event/property) under conditions t3
>

t2 should read "t2=x3", I think.  Other than, I'm okay with this one.
Another possible way to go imight be with sezyxusna'e?

             --gejyspa