X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <34D0CB27.4A9DE615@locke.ccil.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:32:07 -0500 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO References: <199801282334.SAA10720@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 29 13:32:10 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Jorge J. Llamb=EDas wrote: > > This is a good point. Why has the scope of attitudinals been left > > ambiguous? I reckon there are only two possible interpretations: > > 'about' and 'and'. There needs to be a convention for choosing > > which is wanted. > = > There should be a convention, but I'm not sure how much the issue > has been explored. I think that the "and" interpretation is what the re= fgram > suggests, but then the other one seems more useful... The refgram explicitly says that either interpretation is possible, depending on circumstances. The reason for leaving the matter vague is that attitudinals are partially subconscious and non-intentional= ; in principle, you do not *decide* what attitudinal to use to express your= feelings, you express *directly* with an attitudinal. -- = John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)