Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Dec 1993 11:58:28 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Dec 1993 11:33:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199312091633.AA04833@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3559; Thu, 09 Dec 93 11:56:16 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8898; Thu, 09 Dec 93 11:56:26 EDT Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 11:57:42 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: responses to Jorge on fat gismu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 9 06:57:42 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET 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