From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:27:38 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3530 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:27:35 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 00:24:21 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa27389; 22 Jun 95 1:23 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3682; Wed, 21 Jun 95 20:21:53 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4663; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:21:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 14:35:19 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: xanka X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506220123.aa27389@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R > Put more plainly perhaps, I have heard people referred to as being > happy, with no implication that they were "happy about something". Then you wouldn't use {gleki} that does have an "about" place? > Whereas I cannot think of a situation where "anxious" did not imply > "anxious about something". But I wasn't complaining about the "about" place. I was complaining about the "under circumstances" place. > The inclusion of a condition place on xanka means > that it is inherent to the nature of anxiety that it is tied to > conditions. Right. I see no reason why it should be more inherent for xanka than for gleki, that's all. Of course, you can put all kinds of metaphysical biases in the definitions, but to me it seems like an arbitrary complication. Jorge