Message-Id: <m0sUUwa-0000ZCC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 8 Jul 1995 03:52:14 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      imperatives e'i ei
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4503
Lines: 96

>> >I don't understand {e'e} and {e'i}.
>>
>> ".e'i mi klama le briju"
>> "I'm compelled to go to the office; I have no other choice."
>
>What's the difference between that and {ei mi klama le briju}?

.e'i might refer to the fear that I might lose my job otherwise
(or the gun pointed to my head)
.ei refers to duty/obligation

>> ".e'inai" conveys one kind of daring.  There are also others that can
>> convey it. (e.g. .ai.ii)
>
>I think you are mixing two meanings of "to dare". One thing is to
>dare/have the guts to do something, another is to dare/challenge someone
>to do something. What does "constraint" mean? If {e'inai} is to
>challenge/dare someone, why isn't the scale reversed? {e'inai} seems
>like the more useful one.

As .e'i is the scalar opposite of challenge, it is letting circumstances
constrain your options, refusal to challenge, maybe conventionality.
This seems a little different from acceptance.

As .e'inai is the opposite of constraint, I see it as that sense of
challenge or daring that crosses lines drawn in the sand, rules and
conventions.

Which is more useful?  Probably depends on the type of person one is.
You certainly have a predilection for challenge; I on the other hand for
convention and constraint.  Interestingly, the guy who proposed the
cmavo is definitely a challenger, yet proposed them in the order we
currently use.

We generally haven't made usefulness the key factor in determining
order, since usefulness of various emotions is clearly a cultural thing.
In most cases the "positive" form is the one least likely to be defined
in terms of "not" or "against" in English.  "Challenge" almost
invariably needs an "against" to be meaningful.

In any case, if there is a cultural bias in Lojban, with all its
structures, rules, and conventions, then constraint is certainly one
aspect.

>> The attitudinal
>> revision represented the end of the era of this kind of systematicity,
>> in favor of the current different kind.
>
>What different kind? Is there any kind of systematicity in them?

Have you read the attitudinal distribution?  LLG's level 2 thingy, not
Cowan's paper which I haven't looked at, though I think he said it
incorporates much of the prior work.

There was a predecessor to that paper that went even more into the
"system" - or at least how we got to the current set from the previous
one.  If you haven't read it, ask me at LogFest and I'll dig it out of
the archive.  It also may be in very old Lojban List archives - I think
we are talking back in late 1989 to early 90, since the spur of the
attitudinal redesign was a discussion at Art Wieners' house on the way
back from Worldcon in Sept 89.

Older cmavo list versions in our archive also discuss some of the odd
little "systems" that led to their being selected.

>> ".ei la nik. gunka le {thesis}" is an expression that I recognize that
>> Nick is obliged to be working on his thesis AS HE IS rather than joining
>> in our merry debates.  I may have a mixed degree of acceptance of this
> necessary evil %^), and I certainly don't "approve" of it when it causes
>> us to miss his valuable insights.  But I can recognize that his
>> thesis-writing is the way the world SHOULD BE whether I want it, approve
>> of it, or accept it.  Indeed if ".ei" expresses any imperative, it is to
>> myself to not interfere in that obligation, much as I would like to bug
>> Nick to death on some issues he may have valuable insights on.
>
>You seem to be describing "resignation" rather than "obligation", but
>even then, you could use an "imperative" for that.  Your phrase could
>perfectly well go into Esperanto as "Ho ve!  Nicxjo laboru pri sia
>tezo", using a third person imperative.

English failed me here.  No - not resignation.  Rather that Nick has a
duty to himself (and the world?) to work on his thesis that is a higher
calling than his duty to Lojban work.  I can recognize his obligation,
and furthermore feel the obligation to support him in fulfilling his
obligation, being my own obligation to a friend.  The non-empathic .ei
is my own obligations regarding the predicate.  I could add the empathy
attitudinal to focus on Nick's obligations.  But empathizing with
someone else's recognition of their obligations doesn't seem
particularly the sortof thing one calls an imperative to the other
person.

Certainly resignation also is an emotion that I feel in this, but that
is a coloring on the more basic feeling I have that this is the way the
world SHOULD be.

lojbab