From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu May 05 18:49:45 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 43219 invoked from network); 6 May 2005 01:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2005 01:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2005 01:49:45 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DTryK-0001hG-Jr for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:49:44 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTrxm-0001gw-TS; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:49:13 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 May 2005 18:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DTrxY-0001gX-DO for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:48:56 -0700 Received: from web81307.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.82]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTrxW-0001gH-Dc for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:48:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20050506014823.86674.qmail@web81307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 05 May 2005 18:48:23 PDT Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:48:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <737b61f305050515317bb99bdd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9937 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: .aunai and .a'unai X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24311 --- Chris Capel wrote: > On 5/5/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > 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. > > I can certainly see that there would be many > benefits by having more > thorough definitions of these words available. > But are you suggesting > that changing/remapping these words to be more > useful might be > possible? I'm not sure exactly what changes > you're suggesting here. No, any serious remapping would not be possible; there is too much investment in the system as it stands. This does not stop one (not just me) from pointing out that what we have is disorganized if not deficient. Of course, it is best if the quibbler can also provide a workaround for the problems. Nothing occurs to me for most of these cases. > > 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. > > I'm at a loss as to what an "impersonal wish" > would look like. When I > wish for something (or desire it) what I wish > is for the world to be > in a certain, different state. I don't see how > you can remove my own > personal element out of this. I think that > whether the differences in > my hypothetical wish-world involve people or > non-personal facts is > irrelevant. One word suffices to serve both > purposes, and it seems to > me that {au} is that word. Bad choice of words. I meant wishes for things that are not someone doing something, which can be reduced to requests and the like. xorxes examples of {au}, things like "Oh that the train would come" and so on were what I had in mind. I don't see {au} as functioning in this way, based on the descriptions of it role -- and the parallel items (wishes go with requests and maybe hopes, I would imgine). But wishes are more important than what I hypothesized as the intended usage, so I'll take that as a useful clarification. Note that CLL has a different meaning yet for {au}, and expression -- as the keyword says -- of a desire (somewhat related to a wish, I suppose) > > 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. > > Contrary to my original post (I'm not sure > exactly how this happened > since then) I can see the logic in "repulsion" > being the opposite of > interest. It seems to me that "interest" in X > is when thinking > about/doing X is pleasurable or entertaining, > which might take on some > of the sense of "attractive" as well. The > opposite by this definition > would be when thinking about/doing X is > unpleasurable, or repulsive. Well, your sense of "interest" is not what I take to be the ordinary sense: "find interesting" roughly. It has nothing to do with pleasure or not of the subject and always at least implicates pleasure in knowing more about the subject, however repulsive it may be. And in that sense, there is no middle ground: I am interested or not. The other reading of {a'unai}, "interested in the opposite of the subject" also doesn't seem to fit very well, but at least on that spectrum there is a middle ground: don't care about either of them (but notice that the two extremes are then not exclusive: I can be interested in both A and not-A). > And what is this about having no neutral > ground? {a'ucu'i} would mean > a lack of interest, but not an outright > repulsion. I can see this as a > single, logical scale, as I've defined it. I > suppose the danger here > is that I'm extrapolating considerably from the > available definitions, > and that this extrapolation will be > inconsistent from person to person > (even, as in my case, from day to day) unless a > more complete > definition is established somewhere. > > Does {a'u} really break out of the pattern > then? I'm not seeing that. > > > 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. > > I'm sure that many things in lojban could > benefit from redoing. But > even a mostly-broken system, with gaps and > redundancies and odd > attitudinal scales that are really two scales > conflated, still has the > potential to be very useful. And after all, we > can never really > understand the weaknesses of a system until > we've become intimately > familiar with that system. Yes, this system is a marked improvement on earlier versions, which had even fewer and more scattered notions. But an assessment of what is here and a clarification about which of the possible reading for various of these terms is needed. Happily it is coming along and discussions like this should help. > I think the definitions/examples given in the > BPFK sections are a > really good start to make the attitudinals less > ambiguous to > beginners. The only thing I'd change (with my > limited knowledge) is > the use of "reluctance" as the gloss for the > opposite of "desire". > Unfortunately, I can't think of a better gloss > for what amounts in > Jorge's examples to some sort of "reverse-wish" > or "un-desire". > > By the way, is it really the best way in Lojban > to express a > "reverse-wish" to do so with {aunai}, {a'onai}, > and friends? In most > natural languages the construction is > customarily shifted to put the > negative in the predication, like "I wish you > were never born." and > such. Is it more lojbanic to say {.aunai pu do > jbena} or something? > (Is the tense necessary here? It seemed to me > it'd be a bit confusing > without it.) > > Chris Capel > -- > "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like > to bat a bee? What is it > like to be a bee being batted? What is it like > to be a batted bee?" > -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) > > > >