From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Jun 12 18:07:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 01:07:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 51941 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 01:07:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 01:07:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 01:07:28 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5D17RI20150 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:07:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <20010612175324.F14438@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7891 On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 05:05:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > 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. It only contradicts the book for u*, o*, and some of i*. Not for the others. > > 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. > > This way, current usage of things like .ui is maintained, although > current usage of things like .a'o is changed. Sorry, I liked the last way better, that .i UI modifies the truth value. Again, since that operation is such a powerful change of context, we want it to come first, not in the middle with the selbri. > > Which still contravenes the book, but IMO in a less obnoxious way. > > So, using do klama le zarci le zdani and the UI .a'o: > > .i a'o .i do klama le zarci le zdani > [Hope!, about something unspecified.] You go to the store from the > house. > [do klama le zarci le zdani is asserted.] > > .i .a'o do klama le zarci le zdani > Your going to the store from the house makes me hopeful (about something > unspecified. > [do klama le zarci le zdani is asserted.] > This doesn't make much sense. Why are you mentioning the hope in *this* sentence unless that's what you're hopeful about? "e'u do klama" Now means not "I suggest you come", but "You come, and that fact makes me suggest something"? > .i do klama le zarci .a'o le zdani > I hope you went *to the store* from the house. [The klama is asserted, > but not where do klama'd to, exactly.] > > .i do klama .a'o le zarci le zdani > I hope you *went* to the store from the house. [Nothing is asserted.] > > -Robin > ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!