Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0p7pkZ-0000PYC; Thu, 9 Dec 93 20:06 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1211; Thu, 09 Dec 93 20:06:20 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1208; Thu, 9 Dec 1993 20:06:18 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1699; Thu, 9 Dec 1993 19:05:17 +0100 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 11:57:42 EST Reply-To: jorge%PHYAST.PITT.EDU@FINHUTC.hut.fi Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: responses to Jorge on fat gismu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 712 Lines: 21 la djan cusku di'e > > cpedu cpe request > > x1 requests/asks/petitions/solicits for x2 of/from x3 in manner/form x4 > > [also demand (= mi'ecpe)]; > I think it 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) > In addition, the word "manner" is ambiguous in English: Indeed. The more reason not to use it in a definition. Jorge