Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:49453)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBD2romCBRoEGPU9ug@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T7sg0-0004J0-Se; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:18 -0700
Received: by daek18 with SMTP id k18sf3666599dae.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from: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=dma87UoqpqSYj+QP/e9/DO/lTT3tZbvFOP+xqirMs/Q=;
        b=EOMqNVQ9UXWIJLyJ6RaMvLi1XX/OErSYRtI02sVeOGbF2H/Zmh6JT0ZRvTd8BQL+tp
         vySy315S2r+qlfK625supB6i//10vA6RnskYFqLXjhhwmN32GJf2VuH/eoCvZ9EMkApR
         sA5w0hM3ZQlMHLPxGLwZc01OM5ifh1ELdB7ygRN9V0bw9YdF8R0MxYVne8zFmIYmJZgj
         JC9PuOJ8unXDGilAnA+1C5wdm+aJ1fH2yZr1BsVyJyQLatmgKXNYpqhhV6PcW2cA98Lg
         i7n/BP8PN0RMRkT3SPIymOnUgUr0hEcmJDaB2SgWAgxSYCwgF+jV4+x6hDJ2eLlSLdae
         A1mw==
Received: by 10.52.35.84 with SMTP id f20mr1881090vdj.3.1346525046301;
        Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.93.171 with SMTP id cv11ls834124vdb.2.gmail; Sat, 01 Sep
 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.32.97 with SMTP id h1mr2869496vdi.0.1346525045791;
        Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.32.97 with SMTP id h1mr2869495vdi.0.1346525045782;
        Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5si170768vdg.1.2012.09.01.11.44.05
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.171;
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id d16so4852049vcd.2
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.67.144 with SMTP id n16mr2014363vdt.13.1346525045681; Sat,
 01 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.58.248.41 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EFE7EB23-4F8D-4170-9F9F-3245DDD1DA25@yahoo.com>
References: <e3b6680b-31ac-4c30-8399-541f19ad50c1@googlegroups.com>
	<8d3fb774-f4ff-4b86-afa2-df153de2f633@googlegroups.com>
	<CAHiXx=Pm+X0UGv8PcE=x1LP7AL03pMhtMQGDBfXP5OqghR2fpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9+BsuPBtLcx9DfxJu-_FFe7pcrzyArrkLbNEBp7SJSL9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9Ks+bKiYUQSg3t+ejq0s83Vk1BXsWugxWBZHc36EHJUyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<10cd53d6-5aa9-40be-a1f9-2f5ad3115159@googlegroups.com>
	<EFE7EB23-4F8D-4170-9F9F-3245DDD1DA25@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:44:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9+ADcWEYJF0i-J6WAOErvHVnSe=p4WvmFEPnb7Yb=Dt4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any real diffrence between hope (.a'o) and
 desire (.au)?
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=paskios@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: <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>
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
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On 31 August 2012 18:23, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aside from the oddity of defining an emotional expression, this seems wrong
> to me even as an example.{ba'a} is an evidential, a shorthand reason for
> accepting a claim.  It is, admittedly, a weak one, even if we throw in the
> speaker's expertise in the matter, but it still starts a case for accepting
> the following, even tentatively.

For weakly accepting or presenting a claim, there are {ju'oru'e},
{la'aru'e}, and some others. From my perspective, {ba'a, ba'acu'i,
ba'anai} are more like evidential 'modifiers', used to mark off the
temporality of whatever epistemological basis of a statement. To
emphasize the differences:

ba'anai lo dzipo cu melbi
I have since before been able to claim that Antarctica is beautiful.

ba'acu'i lo dzipo cu melbi
I now am able to claim that Antarctica is beautiful.

ba'a lo dzipo cu melbi
I might in the future be able to claim that Antarctica is beautiful.


>  I also doubt that
> the neutral "what might happen" is a reasonable reading for {ba'a}, give the
> more definite readings of the other points on it's scale.

The difference in definiteness may be due to the variation in
actuality (of whatever epistemological basis):

ba'anai -- evidence was obtained (definite basis); 'I remember'
ba'acu'i -- evidence is being obtained (developing basis); 'I experience'
ba'a -- evidence might be obtained (indefinite basis); 'I anticipate'

If by "neutral" you mean "not specifying the likelihood of the
statement being true", I think that's how {ba'a} should work,
especially to the extent that we have other UIs to specify such (if I
wanted to attitudinally indicate that something shall turn out to be
the case, I'd insert somethingn like {ju'o} rather than simply
{ba'a}).


> But {a'o} doesn't introduce a claim at
> all, let alone suggests reasons for accepting it.  If anything, it suggests
> (pragmatics at work) that the sentence following is likely to be false (just
> as "fear" suggests that follows is likely to be true).

If an athlete's odds of winning a gold medal were 80%, couldn't her
supporters still hope she would win? Conversely, if the odds were 20%,
could they hope she would win? I think it depends. Factors other than
likelihood can affect one's threshold for hope. The success of a 2.5
billion dollar rover mission to a red planet may be more hope-worthy
than the success of a 2.5 dollar mission to find a four-leaf clover in
a big garden, even if these were equally feasible.

{a'o} is felt toward something that the speaker wants to be true but
is yet to know to be so. I agree that {a'o} doesn't bear a
truth-claim. Why not? Hope emerges in a certain kind of
temporal-epistemological relation between the mind & the object, such
that the mind is yet to come across evidence for the object. I cannot
hope X if I remember X (ba'anai). I cannot hope X if I experiencce X
(ba'acu'i). I can hope X if I anticipate X (ba'a). And of course
anticipation doesn't introduce a claim. What {a'o} introduces, in
addition to an emotion, seems to be evidentiality.


mu'o

-- 
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.