Message-Id: <199311091921.AA02460@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1993 14:19:45 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      TECH: proposed new rVV attitudinal classifier
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

To put it on the table separately from its embedment is one of my tomes
(the posting on re'enai tonight)

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.  With rarer exceptions (like those
attributed to President Clinton), political expression is not itself a
pure expression but serves better as a categorizer of other attitudes:

political approval, political boredom (not that old proposal again!),
political surprise, completion, discovery, cruelty.  They all seem to be
identifiable to me.  Like religion, there is somewhat of a taboo against
talking about it these days, but some people do it anyway.  Hmm, maybe
the news section of the Washington Post is a manifestation of pure
"re'u".

Each of these is distinct from and somewhat contrasted with all of the
other 6 attitude categorizers, such as 'social' as noted above, which is
what some people might think is related.  But I see 'politicalness' as
more akin to 'spirituality' than to 'sociality'.

I think that it is an attitude that it is useful to be able to express
overtly.  Some of our attitudinals are seldom expressed overtly at least
in a clearly verbal linguistic form (as opposed to body language and
other forms of expression).  But I can easily imagine expressing
political agreement coupled with mental unease over a change to the
language that I don't really approve of (like Nick's lujvo place
structure system).

Most of my proposals are generally just tossed out on the table and I
defend them only because I think the idea warrants consideration or
because it may (but I'm not all that sure it will) solve a problem (e.g.
zi'o and po'o).  I am a little more proprietary on those I consider to
be the 'pure' attitudinals among UI (as opposed to discursives), since
this was a major expansion of JCB's concept that really is my biggest
contribution to the language and one in which I think we will most
quickly be able to use for linguistics research including the SWH test.

Thus I will not only propose this but express a real opinion by voting
yes.  This one suits my instincts rather than merely being a possible
solution to a problem.  It feels right (the little Lojbanists running
around in my head nod their heads enthusiastically as they await
permission to use the word %^).  I can be convinced otherwise, though;
my instincts haven't always been perfect in this effort.

Make any sense to anyone else???

lojbab

lojbab