Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:28:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitudes and vocatives (was: Lojban recordings)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HVOXANCOG4000ZB3@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2702
Lines: 76

la lojbab cusku di'e
 
> .i'a is intended, like the other attitudinals around it in the alpahbet,
> to be one of the emotional nuances of "Yes", or "Yeah".  It need not
> imply agreement or approval, and it is not a statement of certainty.
> Thus it is intended to contrast with .ie - an acceptance, possibly
> reluctant, of a truth with no implication of willing agreement or
> approval.
 
Doesn't that mean "concession/admission"?
 
> Given the basic paradigm of acceptance of a predication, we then had to
> figure the opposite end of the scale.
 
The opposite of that would be rejection or denial. I don't see how
blame comes into it.
 
> The contrast between .i'a and .i'anai then is one of responsibility/guilt.
 
Which has nothing to do with acceptance, as far as I can tell.
 
> .i'a accepts a predication, does not attribute responsibility/guilt to
> others, and thus to some extent makes the speaker take on some shared
> responsibility incumbent in "accepting" the statement (and in making it
> - since the expression of the attitudinal at least by implication states
> the predication as if it came from the speaker).
 
I think a lot of things are being mixed up here. Responsibility for making
a claim has nothing to do with responsibility for the action that the
claim describes. Is the speaker assuming responsibility with {i'a}?
I prefer John's {i'anaise'i} for that.
 
> I don't see this as
> that far removed from Jorge's "nobody is responsible",
 
If the speaker is responsible then someone is responsible.
 
> though I shy away
> from "act of God" since that by implication DOES blame the deity
 
I was using it in its technical sense (that of insurance policies).
If only God was responsible, then nobody was responsible, since
God can't be sued.
 
> - one
> reason why acceptance does incur some personal responsibility.
 
What reason?
 
> .i'anai assigns blame for the predication away from the speaker -
> possibly to a specific place of the predication that is labelled with
> the attitudinal.
 
Then {i'a}-{i'anai} is "blame of the speaker"-"blame of someone else"?
You seem to be saying that it is and then that it isn't.
 
> I'm not sure whether one would use .i'anai to mark onesself when when
> has a place in the predication.  Kinda like pointing the finger at
> onesself.  As in:
>
> I hope this clarifies rather than muddles the issue.
> a'o tu'a lemi .i'anai selsku cu klina genai cfipu terciksi le nabmi
 
You're blaming yourself for your expression being "clear" and
not confusing?
 
Or do you hope that you are blaming yourself for that?
 
Or do you blame yourself for hoping that?
 
Or do you hope that, and blame yourself for that?
 
I'm very confused...
 
Jorge