From lojban+bncCMvjp-TQBRCw1dDeBBoEVaCuAw@googlegroups.com Sun Apr 25 04:43:07 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O60Eo-0000ph-S3; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:43:07 -0700 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf1010271wwb.16 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:mime-version:received:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=tOS93tHacxq5B71Omci97nl4JUo0AYjqSkZh/zc76WY=; b=zq5LLvm9wIDs98GGcohFAPkhmOlDTvmqBdrjsA9drFNvCH/oZuvIGWFRyjWTHIlwRa R08Rwi4VZgb3qhNv94gX0ru9nGOHtKYD9hISqH+XVgSVjZD+yEnOX6V/YdBmdbkGgWAS DR25jbN+zycs/mlt1l3uPcNuWZX+h7XwOnh8s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject :to:x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=W9Vby0Jly1qH+jUpzpisbJnTsSJPL9cmooF68MFRrI1+IhQjBj//Fa2r1vdjDpjeac b3jiBWoDROED7J8HlcIszw4FjVqTpOp2Y1HVduN2SOaKxP3mjqYepKk0Cud1VdlkZ8oH HyZc+YjISOcOfVYk4BuyvSPqNGPyOVNAsxibY= Received: by 10.223.58.146 with SMTP id g18mr720546fah.14.1272195760886; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.35.68 with SMTP id o4ls13321643bkd.1.p; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.140.13 with SMTP id g13mr115363bku.20.1272195758589; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.140.13 with SMTP id g13mr115362bku.20.1272195758560; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f224.google.com (mail-bw0-f224.google.com [209.85.218.224]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 12si375799bwz.5.2010.04.25.04.42.37; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.224 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.224; Received: by mail-bw0-f224.google.com with SMTP id 24so10774298bwz.17 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.147 with SMTP id q19mr1590767bku.169.1272195757336; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.47.196 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:42:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Brockman Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:42:17 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i} To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.224 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dbrockman@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: dbrockman@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I have a proposal for a simplification and improvement of the interpretation of attitudinal scales. This is nothing new --- in fact, I'm just going to describe the way I've been using attitudinals for years --- but I'm not sure how common this particular interpretation is. The core of my suggestion might be that we stop giving definitions of {UI cu'i}: I believe that {UI cu'i} should have a completely compositional meaning. It's good to give usage examples, of course, but I think we should treat {UI cu'i} more or less exactly like {UI ru'e} or {UI sai}. Just as {UI ru'e} and {UI sai} always mean simply "attitude weak" and "attitude strong", the meaning of {UI cu'i} should be "attitude not present" --- nothing more, nothing less. This should be contrasted with {UI nai}, which always has a lexical meaning. You can guess the meaning, because it's usually some kind of opposite of {UI}, but you can't be sure until you look in a dictionary. So, my proposal: * {UI} and {UI nai} are dictionary-defined. * {UI sai}, {UI ru'e} and {UI cu'i} are fully compositional. I'm leaving out {cai} on purpose because its semantics doesn't really matter for this issue, and we can talk about that later (I happen to think it should be lexical). Again, this is not really a change proposal so much as a proposal to simplify the explanation of UI. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.