From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 04 17:18:54 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DTU4j-0000dK-RD
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:45 -0700
Received: from web81310.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.85])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DTU4h-0000d8-Hn
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:45 -0700
Message-ID: <20050505001812.75965.qmail@web81310.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:12 PDT
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: .aunai and .a'unai
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9926
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm learning the attitudinals based on the
> definitions in the
> reference grammar, and I've come across a
> couple of definitions that
> seem to be backwards. In the grammar,
> 
>     .au desire      indifference    reluctance
>     .a'u    interest    no interest repulsion
> 
> However, it seems to me that repulsion is more
> opposite desire than it
> is interest, and likewise, reluctance is more
> opposite interest than
> desire. This could be a typo, but one that's
> been copied to various
> places on the internet already. Does anyone
> agree that these seem to
> be backwards? What usage has been established?
> 
> FWIW, I noticed because I kept getting .au and
> .a'u confused when
> learning the attitudinals in Supermemo, and I
> finally realized that
> this seemed to be the reason. So my gut
> instinct was to treat
> repulsion as opposite of desire and reluctance
> opposite of interest,
> before I had even realized there was a conflict
> in the definitions. I
> think this is relatively strong evidence that
> they're reversed, if
> usage hasn't been established.
> 
> There's no mention of this in the errata for
> CLL.
> 
What is at least as likely is that (as is often
the case) the key-words are just a hair off, that
"desire" means "eagerness" or some such thing and
"interest" has to be taken as a pro attitude
toward an object ("interest" has only an opposite
in its usual sense -- "lack of interest" or,
speaking with the vulgar, "disinterest" with no
netral position). to be sure, "desire" is not bad
for that -- as interest certainly is -- but I
don't think that is enough to make a major change
here.  (The whole VV section needs some
rethinking -- which has been going on for years,
so maybe I means needs some decisions being
made.)
> 
> 
>