From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:35 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 1 Feb 1993 02:16:22 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3605; Mon, 01 Feb 93 02:14:56 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2388; Mon, 01 Feb 93 02:16:50 EST Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 18:12:40 EST Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: TECH: empathy in attitudinals (proposal) X-To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: ; from "John Cowan" at Jan 27, 93 3:47 pm Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 1 13:12:40 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: John Cowan stood up, stood up some more, and spoke thus: The empathy attitudinal is something whose time has come: do it, John, do it! As for an attitudinal: would {mi'i} be too confusing, as a reminder of {mi}? Or {do'i} for that matter as a variant of {do}? I remind Colin that {xe'e} is already taken (the list of Xv'v cmavo I posted a while back. In fact, John, isn't it worth looking through them, and selecting what should go into the canon?) {jaido'e} will do, as Mark pointed out, for the proposed {xe'e}, and the complications he draws attention to do give me pause... "Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`, N N O nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres, I I L IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s." C C A University of Melbourne. K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_ K H S *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*