Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0oy6bS-0000PYC; Sat, 13 Nov 93 00:04 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1113; Sat, 13 Nov 93 00:04:40 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1111; Sat, 13 Nov 1993 00:04:40 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2777; Fri, 12 Nov 1993 23:03:52 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 17:00:36 -0500 Reply-To: Erik Rauch Sender: Lojban list From: Erik Rauch Subject: TECH: proposed new rVV attitudinal classifier X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2135 Lines: 42 lojbab: >For your consideration: > >re'u (assuming I am correct that it is available) as a 7th member of the >emotion categorizers including ro'V and re'e and labelling expressions >of 'political' attitude. > >Political expression is a real part of language, usually clearly >recognized as such. It is normally distinct from social emotions or >expressions. Political attitudes are often strongly held and strongly >felt - a comparison with spiritual/religious attitude expressed through >re'e is certainly in order... I tend to stay away the existing ro'V series (well, when I start writing significantly, I will. :), but I think they are tolerable to have as part of the language. But not the proposed cmavo. The reason: This discinction is highly culture-specific - in this case, to the dominant "western" media culture (also to be found all over the world). What I'm saying is, it is an artifact specifically of our twentieth century culture that we consider political to be somehow seperate from ordinary reality. You could use the same argument against ro'a, ro'e, etc., but they have more validity to them as "spheres", and incidentally, they show up as such in many different cultures in history. And you can simply elect not to use them, but having the political cmavo in there would make the other 6 look different -- somehow more, specific, more pragmatic? More concrete. I have tried to write about this in English in several different venues, and it has always been very difficult to express the absurdity of the distinction. Nevertheless, it just does not make sense. About your example of expressing political agreement coupled with mental unease: this is really a kind of shorthand, drawing on one of the several meanings of the word political. What you really want to say is, "I disagree with the proposal, but in order to preserve unity [or, more often, votes], I will say I agree with it." By contrast, the other "sphere" attitudinals are not shorthand for anything that can be said so plainly. Your other examples did not seem different enough from ordinary expression to support the addition of the cmavo.