From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Jun 12 20:36:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 03:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 80265 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 03:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 03:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 03:36:39 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AFCE2CA800B2; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:36:46 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:35:35 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20010612202718.G14438@digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7902 > .ui do klama > I'd be happy if 'do klama' was true. So would I. .ui do klama? well, I'd be happy if that meant do klama was true and 0h by the way .ui Now as for what you meant, well, having that separate from a'o is just a huge cultural bias from English. Now, as for r's comments on my proposal: Right on! that's the sort of thing I meant when I said it needed work. Now as for the proposal you included: .i .ui mi klama has in every usage I've seen meant that mi klama - so that goes against how it's been done already. Swap your rules and I like it. Why do we need a'o? isn't it under any of these proposals just a redundancy that could be a non-assertive .ui or other attitudinal and therefore a cultural bias from English, which keeps hope and would-be-pleasure separate? --la kreig.daniyl 'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci .i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji: 0x5C3A1E74