From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:26:52 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3507 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:26:51 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 07:48:22 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa19675; 21 Jun 95 8:47 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5681; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:45:44 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3515; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:44:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:44:50 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: xanka X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210847.aa19675@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R xank* >> > Why does {xanka} have >> >"under conditions" but {gleki} doesn't? >> >> Perhaps my understanding of happiness (which became embedded in Lojban) >> is that it can be unconditional, whereas anxiety is conditional. > >So you can be a happy person but not an anxious person? I don't understand the question? In English there are no implied ellipses in either of those two phrases. In the Lojban, one can be happy independent of conditions, but anxiety is presumed either in response an event or state in one's environment. Put more plainly perhaps, I have heard people referred to as being happy, with no implication that they were "happy about something". Whereas I cannot think of a situation where "anxious" did not imply "anxious about something". There are philsophical positions that allow for or assume that happiness can be a default (and hence unconditional) state of mankind (people in general). I have not heard of philosophies that assume that people in general are inherently anxious, without being anxious about something in particular. If you are asking about "happy-type people" and "anxious-type people", I think that these are better stated as "usually happy/anxious" or "normally happy/anxious" >Everything can be conditional, that's what {va'o} is for, isn't it? Yes. And you can put a "ka'a" place in every predicate too, including klama. The question is whether a place is always a necessary condition for the predication. The inclusion of a condition place on xanka means that it is inherent to the nature of anxiety that it is tied to conditions. lojbab