Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0surmM-0000ZOC; Tue, 19 Sep 95 04:47 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.12+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA08732 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:47:21 +0300 Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (MAILER@CUNYVMV2) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V5.0-3 #2494) id <01HVG4VZ4YN4000KFR@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> for veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:48:18 +0200 (EET) Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4921; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:46:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:45:41 -0400 (EDT) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: lojban recordings Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HVG4VZSQS6000KFR@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2087 Lines: 48 la djan cusku di'e > la xorxes. cusku di'e > > What does it mean "to acknowledge an offer"? Is it the same as > > accepting it? > I think that to refuse an offer, one has to do more than "je'e", but that > "je'e" alone may pragmatically be understood as acceptance. What if I want to say "I got your offer, let me think about it". Is there no way then of acknowledging without commiting one way or the other as to acceptance? > > And what exactly does "i'a" mean? > > .i'a UI1 acceptance attitudinal: acceptance - blame > > What has acceptance got to do with blame? > > I almost understand this, but on reflection, I realize that I don't > grasp the distinction between "i'anai" and "i'enai". Well, blame involves assignment of responsability for an action, while disapproval is simply a way of feeling towards an action. I may disapprove of something you do, but if I think that you have a right to do it, blame is totally out of place. Blame will enter only if the question of who is responsible is relevant for some reason. > > Or is the scale > > "acceptance - blame" a scale between "my fault" and "your fault"? > > I don't think so. Then what is the meaning of "acceptance" in that scale? It's very confusing. Is it acceptance in the sense of "things are what they are, nobody is to blame, nobody is responsible, it was an act of God"? > To paraphrase some remarks made in The Loglanist about (the Loglan > equivalent of) "coi", "je'e" is neither gracious nor ungracious, but > merely correct. But the whole point of a response to "thank you" is to be gracious, not correct. What is a "correct" response to it? Would it be incorrect to not respond anything? It would be impolite, nothing more, but then responding "je'e" is not much more polite, unless it is the standard way of doing it in the language, but usually there is at least a facade of politeness in the standard formula. But in any case, a dry "je'e" is much better than a hoplessly malglico "fi'i". In fact, "je'e" is what I have been using, but I always felt a bit uneasy about it. Jorge