Message-Id: <199407251541.AA04616@nfs1.digex.net>
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Date: Mon Jul 25 11:41:13 1994
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 25 11:41:13 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

la djan cusku di'e

> It's "dai".  But I think we leave the definition alone: "empathy" is confusing
> enough without dragging in "deictic reference shift".

Amen to that.

> I will add a note to the
> paper saying that in some circumstances we attribute emotion (or its analogs)
> to inanimate objects:
>
>         le bloti .uudai klama le xasloi
>         The boat [Pity!] [empathy] goes-to the ocean:floor
>         The boat, poor thing, sank.

(Missing a cu there) Is the boat feeling pity? How about:

        le jatna cu catlu le nu le bloti .uudai cu klama le xasloi
        The captain looks how the boat, poor thing, sinks.

The empathy is of course with the captain, not with the boat. The boat is
what inspires the pity, not who feels it. Should uu be stuck to the object
of pity or to the one who feels pity, in the case of empathy?

I don't think uu is an easy emotion to attribute to inanimate objects.
ui might be easier:

        le bloti cu klama uidai
        The boat goes, happy!


Jorge