From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 05 07:27:40 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 May 2005 07:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DThK8-0006g8-9A for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 07:27:32 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DThK6-0006fU-PP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 07:27:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20050505142659.71424.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 05 May 2005 07:26:59 PDT Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:26:59 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: .aunai and .a'unai To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9934 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list At this point there seems to be agreement that these attitudinals at least (but surely most ot the rest too) need some more work. There is less agreement about what should happen in these cases. xorxes' reading that {au} expresses something rather than claiming it is surely right (almost by definition for these kinds of words, which are not even fictive, let alone factive). That what {au} expresses is a wish is less clear as the other suggested readings indicates. We clearly do need a way to express wishes of the impersonal sort (i.e., not requests or suggestions directed at agents) and there does not seem to be a place for them. But the other suggestions also seem to be useful things to have and are not covered in any obvious way. Using {a'u} for interest in the ordinary sense does not fit the pattern very well (no neutral ground in this category, repulsion is not the opposite, etc.), though, again, this is a notion that deserves some mark. The {a'unai} example offered suggests that {a'u} ought to be "attractive" or some such -- again a needed but perhaps unavailable form (though something like {ui} is close in some cases. It should also be noted that some of the attitudes which there are words to express seems to be ones that we do not express (are not really attitudes, maybe): cowardice, for example, or competence. So there is room for a rearrangement of terms to be more inclusive and more unified. Not a real possibility, of course.