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 #1) id m0qSSlk-000023C; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:20 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9004; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:19:24 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9000; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 19:19:23 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6073; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 18:18:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 11:38:33 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1008 Lines: 32 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