Received: from mail-vb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:36685)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCN673cmqFBCj7p-BBRoE0zCl9A@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T0czS-0001YC-IJ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:34:30 -0700
Received: by vbzb23 with SMTP id b23sf3880966vbz.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam
         :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=RByUitfBdqLaI902RsJLvxHcdyJ8KCQ39spTgKUK1Qw=;
        b=wM/8ddxgLls1W7iG1HKDShVNwCVOQjLNosAoea1Tr9+s9Z5536yNgx51tOyxz8gylh
         6AS4WWOjLS7vZP1C350xDaUiUdb9J+1u/lApc/+uKJsUxVWKBpoGKS1DWL6eBP5u2d+W
         MCupQIrJ7Rq2aGn378jGxN0kmbrVEukXvc2rY=
Received: by 10.229.105.161 with SMTP id t33mr397215qco.17.1344796451218;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.176.150 with SMTP id be22ls6897565qcb.4.gmail; Sun, 12 Aug
 2012 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.186.143 with SMTP id cs15mr6754603qab.3.1344796450463;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.186.143 with SMTP id cs15mr6754602qab.3.1344796450453;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net (eastrmfepo203.cox.net. [68.230.241.218])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id mx24si89176qcb.3.2012.08.12.11.34.10;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.218 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.218;
Received: from eastrmimpo109 ([68.230.241.222]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20120812183410.DMKL18532.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo109>
          for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:34:10 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.187.237.100])
	by eastrmimpo109 with cox
	id lua91j0022AfMYu01ua9SD; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:34:09 -0400
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020207.5027F721.00B3,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=DeGVW4RW c=1 sm=1
 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=umyTHFUHQVoA:10
 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=5VbPEKMB9MhVzqqOB6EA:9
 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Cm2qQjc7CjkFLevm:21 a=jglmIL0EpFTlsZDx:21
 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <5027F722.2000607@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:34:10 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention
References: <f36b517b-87d9-4aac-bfd7-b33d226bf46a@googlegroups.com> <50255C09.10805@lojban.org> <b7275ac9-1e1c-42e0-bed1-dfcb026849e8@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <b7275ac9-1e1c-42e0-bed1-dfcb026849e8@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.241.218 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:07:53 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
>
>     Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>      > If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then
>     why there
>      > is no gismu for "intention"?
>
>     The intended gismu corresponding to intention was "platu", or perhaps
>     some compound thereof.  I'll accept the possible use of zukte proposed
>     by someone else, though I think intention need not be purposive either.
>
>      > {zukte} = "to intend"? the definition says nothing about that. It
>     should be clarified, that is changed.
>
>     The gismu list is baselined. We haven't allowed changes merely for
>     clarity for nearly 20 years.
>
> Here is the lack of clarity, actually. If there is no equivalent of
> {.ai} in gismu space we must create it.

I disagree.  It is NOT essential that concepts be expressed in gismu, if 
they can be expressed in reasonably short, and possibly metaphorical, lujvo.

One thing I did not mention last post: gismu, and brivla in general, 
express claims.  Attitudinals do not express claims.  The set of claims 
that we might express about the world does not match the set of emotions 
that we might feel about the world.  Yes, it would sometimes be useful 
to have words to talk about those emotions, umm, unemotionally.  But I 
doubt that such analytical discussion of emotions is all that common, 
and hence there is no need for short words or expressions to facilitate 
such discussion.  Indeed, one could probably get by with "cinmo la'ezo 
.ai." without need for any word invention at all.

> If it's {zukte}

It isn't.

>then we must clarify it's real meaning.

Emotional expressions do not necessarily have "meaning".  If they do, it 
isn't entirely  clear that what I *mean* in expressing "ai" or "io" or 
"iu" is necessarily what you *mean* if you express them.

> The question is pretty straightforward: How do I say "I intend ..."  not
> using {.ai}

You most certainly would not say that using "ai".  You express intention 
using "ai".  You do not claim to intend using "ai".

> and having in mind it's clean meaning with no extra implications?

Attitudinals have not clean meaning, and aren't intended to.  Any 
implications that they have are purely emotive.

lojbab

-- 
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.