Message-Id: <199510081640.MAA04231@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 8 Oct 1995 09:15:15 -0700
Reply-To: MarkLVines@EWORLD.COM
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Mark L. Vines" <MarkLVines@EWORLD.COM>
Subject:      Attemptive?
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

i mi pu cusku di'e
> Lojban has 1545 rafsi, of which (by my current estimate) about
> 392 are phonologically identical to their "twins" among the
> 1085 cmavo.  In many cases, the rafsi-twin & the cmavo-twin are
> both derived from the same gismu.  In at least that many cases,
> the twins have similar meanings.

I'm no longer satisfied with what I said here.  I should have said
something more like this:

> Lojban has 1545 rafsi, of which (by my current estimate) about
> 392 are phonologically identical to their "twins" among the
> 1085 cmavo.  In many cases, the rafsi-twin & the cmavo-twin are
> both derived from the same gismu.  In other cases, the rafsi is
> derived from the cmavo directly, with no gismu paternity involved.
> In all these cases & perhaps others, the cmavo & its twin rafsi
> have similar meanings.

This experience -- of being dissatisfied with something I said -- is all
the more frustrating because I knew, before "uttering" or posting the
first version, that I didn't have it quite right.  But I couldn't afford
the time & energy to fine-tune my utterance.  So I delivered a less than
satisfactory version of what I really wanted to say.

Isn't that a fairly common experience?  I think it is, & that makes me
wish that Lojban had a kind of "evidential discursive" that I would call
an "attemptive."  This would be a discursive which would normally follow
an [optional] evidential.  To the best of my limited knowledge, the
closest things to an attemptive in Lojban are za'e, ju'ocu'i & sa'enai.

According to le ma'oste, the word za'e is a "forethought nonce-word
indicator" which "indicates [that the] next word is [a] nonce-creation
and may be nonstandard."  But za'e is too restrictive for what I want.
It applies only to the next word, whereas I want an attemptive which can
apply to an entire bridi (or more, or less) just like any discursive.
Also, za'e concerns a potential dissatisfaction with the form of an
utterance, whereas I want an attemptive which concerns dissatisfaction
with its meaning.

According to le ma'oste, the word ju'ocu'i is an attudinal modifier which
expresses uncertainty.  But ju'ocu'i might be taken to indicate
uncertainty about the truth of a proposition.  I'm more concerned with
the kind of situation where I'm confident that a proposition is true (or
that it has whatever evidential status I assign to it), but less
confident that what I'm saying corresponds in meaning to the proposition
involved.

According to le ma'oste, the word sa'enai is a discursive which means
"loosely speaking."  That's much closer to what I want.  But sa'enai
could be used by someone who's quite happy to phrase hi/r proposition
loosely.  (Might sa'enai oi be used by someone unhappy about phrasing
hi/r proposition loosely?)  I want an attemptive which would be used by
anyone who isn't sure how loose hi/r phrasing is, but is trying to tighten
it.

The syllable toi is already a cmavo (for end parenthesis).  I regret
that, because toi matches the rafsi derived from the gismu troci, "try,"
& might therefore have made a good attemptive cmavo.  Here are some ways
I might use *toi if it were the kind of attemptive I wish for.

Suppose you're acquainted with Thomas, who wore a military uniform to his
own wedding.  But the wedding was some time ago and you haven't yet
recalled which branch of the military Thomas belongs to.  In fact, you
have a notion it might be the Coast Guard, which is _not_ military except
in wartime.  But he wore the uniform; you saw that when you attended the
wedding with a friend of the bride's.  You say:

> i za'a *toi la tamas puzu dasni le jikri'i le bilni manfo
> di'o lo vo'a specfari'i

or:  I observed a truth which I will try to express by saying, Thomas
wore a military dress uniform at his own wedding.

Now suppose you're a sportscaster at a soccer/football game.  Suddenly
Jones kicks the ball with his knee.  Well, not quite with his knee.  The
ball makes contact with his leg just below the knee.  But, as a
sportscaster, you've become accustomed saying cidni tikpa for "knee
kick."  You don't feel like interrupting your tanru with sa'u or to'u or
sa'enai, yet none of those would fit right anywhere except after cidni.
You say:

> i ue [za'a] *toi la djonz cu cidni tikpa le bolci

or:  I observed a surprising truth which I will try to express by saying,
Jones knee-kicked the ball.  (Presumably a sportscaster is entitled to
omit za'a in context.)

Now suppose you had a dream about having known me in a past life when we
lived in neighboring houses on the shore of a lake.  Only it wasn't
really a past life so much as it was a life on an alternative timeline.
But gradually, as the dream progressed, you realized that the houses were
only shadows, & the lake was really a droplet on a membrane between two
different worlds, one mundane & the other magical....  You don't want to
tell me the whole dream, but you want to convey how I fit into it.  You say:

> i se'o *toi mi'o cu lamxa'u di'o le purci lifselku'e

or:  I internally experienced something which I will try to express by
saying, you & I were neighbors in a past life.

Again, I realize that this is not the correct way to use toi.  But I wish
there were an "attemptive" cmavo which could be used that way.  If there
already is, please let me know.

co'o mi'e mark,l