Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 01:40:58 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199407230540.AA00628@access1.digex.net>
To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Jul 23 01:41:06 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

jimc:
JI> This way we could say things like:
JI> 
JI>         (le mlatu (pe lemi mensi ku) .ui) cu pinxe (le ladru)
JI>         The cat of my sister happily drinks the milk
JI>                 (cat is happy, not sister or speaker)
JI> vs.
JI>         (le mlatu) cu .ui pinxe (le ladru)
JI>         .ui le mlatu cu pinxe le ladru          (more normal order)
JI>         Good, the cat is drinking the milk (speaker is happy)

I can agree with this ONLY if the first usage is marked with the empathy
attitudinal "dai" -> .uidai

The only case where I could see any other approacha s appropriate would be if
we had some type of 'narrative mood' that could be marked for storytelling,
in which case all attitudinals would default to the pragmatic 'agent'
or 'experiencer appropriate to the sentence.  This came up in Ivan Derzhanski's
Story of the Stairs, in which attitudinals are intended to be those of the
characters of the story rather than the relatively less important narrator's
point of view.  I could see this disticntion being present in the language,
probably requirting a new cmavo, since characters can experience empathy as can
the narrator, in ways independent of the 'reality' of the story.

This can be more-or-less accomplished metalinguistically, with some
nice up-front "sei lisri" to express the narration mood, so perhaps we
don't need a cmavo (but if this is the way to do it, it should be
listed in the appropriate papers and dictionary entry).

Hey, I almost agree with jimc on something %^)

lojbab