Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:29:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712122129.QAA18157@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: debating style and attitudinals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1395 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 12 16:29:32 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU .ue.uanai.u'i As usual I can't follow the finer points of some of these strings, but the debating style is reminiscent of MIT in the sixties (not that I was around then, but I enjoyed reading a few of the bloodier exchanges in the "linguistics wars"). Is this just the way Lojbanists speak English, or are you really at each other's throats? Maybe you could mark your text with [mabla] , [.ionai] or [le'uro'e] if you really want to insult or intellectually dismember each other, and perhaps [pe'azo'o] if you're just kidding (I'm assuming the latter would translate as "speaking figuratively and humorously"). [ta'o] peppering text with attitudinals, discursives etc. might be a good idea overall, since (a) [a'o] it makes things clearer, (b) we get to practice/test them (c) [ru'a] we could observe some Sapir-Whorf effects, such as greater emotional clarity, and (d) it could be fun. For beginners such as myself, attitudinals are one of the easiest and most productive parts of the language. [e'unai] watch the typing, though, since hitting the wrong key could be disastrous (for example, if And, in one of his characteristically vitriolic postings, were to write [le'uro'u] instead of [le'uro'e]!). And whatever the rights and wrongs of it, [pe'u] no ironic attitudinals! co'o Robin Turner Bilkent Universitesi, IDMYO, Ankara, Turkey.