From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Dec 15 06:07:39 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 1993 11:09:52 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 1993 10:45:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199312151545.AA06021@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8765; Wed, 15 Dec 93 11:07:44 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7266; Wed, 15 Dec 93 11:09:14 EDT Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 11:07:39 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: responses to Jorge on fat gismu To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199312091658.AA28304@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Dec 9, 93 11:57:42 am Status: RO X-Status: mi pu cusku di'e > > I think [ve cpedu] is not an attitude, but rather a "ve cusku"; you may request by > > letter, or by "bacru"-ing, or by gesture. "Form" is the more important > > concept. > > If that is the case, wouldn't a {vecu'u} tag suffice? It doesn't seem to be > crucial to the concept. lojbab seemed to have in mind an attitude, though: > > > > > Note also that cpedu has an x4 manner, whereas the manner is implicit in > > > > pikci (respectful, supplicant) Hmmm, I think you must be right. Very well, I support the death of "ve cpedu" as redundant to either "seci'o" or "vecu'u". (Of course, a pure attitudinal wouldn't be the right thing: "seci'o" often works to express the emotional attitude with which something is done.) -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.