From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 04 17:19:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 57178 invoked from network); 5 May 2005 00:19:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2005 00:19:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2005 00:19:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DTU5q-0000ef-LZ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:19:54 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTU50-0000dg-8Q; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:19:03 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DTU4j-0000dK-RD for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:45 -0700 Received: from web81310.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.85]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTU4h-0000d8-Hn for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20050505001812.75965.qmail@web81310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 04 May 2005 17:18:12 PDT Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:18:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9926 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: 24299 --- Chris Capel wrote: > I'm learning the attitudinals based on the > definitions in the > reference grammar, and I've come across a > couple of definitions that > seem to be backwards. In the grammar, > > .au desire indifference reluctance > .a'u interest no interest repulsion > > However, it seems to me that repulsion is more > opposite desire than it > is interest, and likewise, reluctance is more > opposite interest than > desire. This could be a typo, but one that's > been copied to various > places on the internet already. Does anyone > agree that these seem to > be backwards? What usage has been established? > > FWIW, I noticed because I kept getting .au and > .a'u confused when > learning the attitudinals in Supermemo, and I > finally realized that > this seemed to be the reason. So my gut > instinct was to treat > repulsion as opposite of desire and reluctance > opposite of interest, > before I had even realized there was a conflict > in the definitions. I > think this is relatively strong evidence that > they're reversed, if > usage hasn't been established. > > There's no mention of this in the errata for > CLL. > What is at least as likely is that (as is often the case) the key-words are just a hair off, that "desire" means "eagerness" or some such thing and "interest" has to be taken as a pro attitude toward an object ("interest" has only an opposite in its usual sense -- "lack of interest" or, speaking with the vulgar, "disinterest" with no netral position). to be sure, "desire" is not bad for that -- as interest certainly is -- but I don't think that is enough to make a major change here. (The whole VV section needs some rethinking -- which has been going on for years, so maybe I means needs some decisions being made.) > > >