From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 05 06:09:17 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 May 2005 06:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DTg69-0005JG-Gg for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 06:09:03 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.203]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTg5t-0005In-Au for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 06:08:59 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so104821wra for ; Thu, 05 May 2005 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=WxOcCgcOQ4ouCTCUNVcl05esOiKgns+hnrgPXdPzXeLlvWC+tDX0lG4y1OR1R9ddH4xHXsazg7ahmAcGYKwUjlsczPxAq8AxKGXD1lLhokTwbKqgoEHoqD859FQa+eWULtW+m9xOq6FucKGl0zjr/jLKnHqpAYOlq3T/yRhBqCk= Received: by 10.54.13.63 with SMTP id 63mr182280wrm; Thu, 05 May 2005 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.35.76 with HTTP; Thu, 5 May 2005 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160505050608ee83a55@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:08:14 -0400 From: Adam COOPER To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: .aunai and .a'unai In-Reply-To: <737b61f305050416391251a54d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3531_13607954.1115298494657" References: <737b61f305050416391251a54d@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 9929 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adamgarrigus@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_3531_13607954.1115298494657 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Not having thought about this before, I posit that it might be helpful to= =20 think of 'desire' not as the noun, but rather along the lines of the=20 auxiliary verb 'want'. If you don't want to do something, you're reluctant= =20 to do it. Hence: {.au mi klama le zdani be le mi rirni} {.au nai mi klama le zdani be le mi rirni} Maybe 'inclination' would be a better gloss than 'desire'. On 5/4/05, Chris Capel wrote: >=20 > 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, >=20 > .au desire indifference reluctance > .a'u interest no interest repulsion >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > There's no mention of this in the errata for CLL. >=20 > Chris Capel > -- > "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it > like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" > -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) > ------=_Part_3531_13607954.1115298494657 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Not having thought about this before, I posit that it might be helpful to think of 'desire' not as the noun, but rather along the lines of the auxiliary verb 'want'. If you don't want to do something, you're reluctant to do it. Hence:

{.au mi klama le zdani be le mi rirni}
{.au nai mi klama le zdani be le mi rirni}

Maybe 'inclination' would be a better gloss than 'desire'.


On 5/4/05, 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 ba= ckwards. In the grammar,

    .au desire &nb= sp;    indifference    reluctance
    .a'u    interest  = ;  no interest repulsion

However, it seems to me that repu= lsion is more opposite desire than it
is interest, and likewise, relucta= nce 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 tobe backwards? What usage has been established?

FWIW, I noticed beca= use 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
repuls= ion 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.

Chris Capel
--
"What is it like to be a = bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being bat= ted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)
------=_Part_3531_13607954.1115298494657--