From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Jun 12 19:20:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 02:20:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 6743 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 02:20:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 02:20:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.168) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 02:20:48 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5D2JMA06198 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:19:22 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15A0D0-0001B2-00 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:16:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:16:38 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010612221638.B4469@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20010612170520.X14438@digitalkingdom.org> <20010612175324.F14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010612175324.F14438@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7893 On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 05:53:24PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 05:05:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: Um. Would the real Robin Lee Powell please stand up? > > Here's an extension that I think I like: > > > > 1. In a sentence by itself, UI is a bare emotion. > > 2. At the front of a sentence, UI modifies the assertive nature of the > > whole bridi. > > 3. After a particular sumti, UI modifies the assertive nature of the > > element, but leaves the assertive nature of the bridi alone. > > 4. After the brivla, UI does not modify the assertive nature at all. > > > > Note that #2 contravenes the book. > Which is stupid. So, how about this: > > 1. In a sentence by itself, UI is a bare emotion. > > 2. At the front of a sentence, UI does not modify the assertive nature > of anything at all. > > 3. After a particular sumti, UI modifies the assertive nature of the > element, but leaves the assertive nature of the bridi alone. > > 4. After the brivla, UI modifies the assertive of the bridi as a whole. Your #2, on the other hand, contradicts actual usage as well as the book (consider 'xu'). I get the idea that if we follow the Book to the letter, we get the ambiguous mess we have now. I think that if the o* and u* attitudinals were assumed to have no significant effect on the assertive nature of a sentence, it would bring things into line nicely while only contradicting the Book in a part that's vague anyway. -- Rob Speer