Received: from mail-gh0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:50963) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SZNyZ-0007Wa-2J; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:49 -0700 Received: by ghbf16 with SMTP id f16sf3330083ghb.16 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=deuuVZjcKl9jwOaAtjzA2MNZrQvX8dJ6aJg+GoeMc2Q=; b=Wp92obKwjkbgYFpAbwtg4cYNfGli8ffWs4Dk0eFa3aipDF6jDkRGb6qK2DhQaaEyUM ypN8mhE0Z4Dg/g9zeucmosE6a+UYbTg0nSX9be3wo5lmWr9Kp7VoHY1EeY9akGKj56uX jycNP1n0+3Hu2cj8S67mYaJrB33xS88IYGK3I= Received: by 10.224.209.67 with SMTP id gf3mr623596qab.14.1338303880404; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.78.165 with SMTP id l37ls3012908qck.9.gmail; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.186.17 with SMTP id cq17mr6036931qab.6.1338303879075; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.186.17 with SMTP id cq17mr6036925qab.6.1338303878748; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f42.google.com (mail-qa0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g3si7971556qcz.2.2012.05.29.08.04.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.42; Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i31so2147253qaf.1 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.172.195 with SMTP id be3mr11814198oec.48.1338303878524; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.17.97 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:04:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References:

From: ".arpis." Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:04:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Implicit backward-facing scope for attitudinals To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ki'e I'm not sure I like the "end of text" rule, but I now feel more comfortable with just using {fu'o}. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Adam Lopresto wrote: > {fu'o} without {fu'e} is what I'd suggest, but I'll admit that it's not > spelled out in the official docs. The grammar can't enforce {fu'e...fu'o} > balancing, so it's up to the semantics to decide what happens if they're > unbalanced. When I was writing up that section of the BPFK, I put it that > they can nest (again, never before mentioned), that {fu'e} without {fu'o} > goes to end of text, and that {fu'o} without {fu'e} goes to start of text. > Oh, and that the effected attitudinal can be after the {fu'e} or the {fu'o}. > These all seem like reasonable, backwards compatible extensions, and I don't > see any reason why we'd need an experimental cmavo for it. > > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:38 PM, .arpis. > wrote: >> >> My first thought was {fu'o} without {fu'e}, but I know better... Say, >> after typing (or saying) a paragraph, I would like to reveal that I >> was being sarcastic the entire time. This roughly resembles the >> occasionally used in geeky forums "" construct without a >> corresponding opening tag. I've also found myself wanting this for >> other emotions and after some thought, recognized that I basically >> want it to apply to UI. >> >> As far as I know, this isn't expressible in lojban (not that it's >> expressible in any other language I know), but it's something people >> have a desire to do. >> >> Does this warrant an experimental cmavo, or should it be left as is, >> with something like {no'i je'u nai} (or something else) standing in? >> >> -- >> mu'o mi'e .arpis. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "lojban" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. -- mu'o mi'e .arpis. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.