On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Robin Lee Powel= l <rlpo= well@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:39:39PM -0700, Lindar wrote: > According to CLL Chapter 13 Section 3 examples 3.8 through 3.12
> (and pretty much the whole chapter) a large number of UI1 do not
> actually work as emotional indicators, but as evidentials like in
> UI2. Rather than {.oi} expressing annoyance at a particular thing,
> it states that it works more like "Complaint: ", which to me= seems
> more like something out of UI2.

As far as I know, {.oi} is a pure emotion indicator; where do you
see otherwise?

> Similarly, {.ai} seems to be "Intent: " rather than expressi= ng a
> feeling of intent,

Please avoid {.ai} for this discussion; it is already controversial.<= br>

> {.e'u} is "Suggestion: " instead of feeling suggestive, = and {.e'o}
> is "Request: " instead of a feeling of petition.

Those are irrealis as far as I know, yes.

> There is a rather big inconsistency in this regard as some UI1

UI1 vs. UI2 is simply how people decided to group them at some time in the past; it has no formal impact on the language at all, they
are all just UI.

> function this way, whereas some others such as {.ui}, {.iu}, and
> {.io} actually express pure emotion. As I understand it, this has
> been a very long debate, especially with regard to {.ai} (hence
> the alternate title).

The issue with {.ai} is totally seperate.

> I hope to bring this to an end.

That's unlikely.

> We -cannot- meet half way on this,

Then you might as well walk away now; I have little or no interest in discussion with someone who absolutely will not compromise.

> I propose to change this to one of two things:
>
> Option 1: Make all UI1

Again: "UI1" has little or no meaning. =A0Grammatically, th= ere is just
"UI". =A0Some of them have irrealis meanings, some of them are pu= re
emotional expression, some of them convert between the two sort of
(da'i), and some of them are just bizarre (kau).

> function the same by making them all evidential- like such that
> they work like {.e'u} as described in CLL; create a new set of
> cmavo based on UI1 with similar meanings, but indicating pure
> emotion.

You're talking about destroying the meaning of basically *every*<= br> piece of Lojban ever.

No.

> oi - "Complaint: "
> ui - "Expression of Joy: "

Picking on the two that are most well understood: what is it you're
intending these to mean, exactly? =A0Surely you do not intend irrealis
"Complaint:"? =A0If not, what is the change? =A0These look like p= ure
emotional expression, which are what we have now. =A0Seriously: I have
no idea how this is different than what we have now for those two
words.

> Option 2: Make all UI1 express only emotion. Take the specific UI
> that do change the meaning of the bridi and move them to a new
> space in UI2 with cmavo that correspond to their counterparts (via
> previously mentioned method) as perhaps not all UI1 need an
> irrealis counterpart as in option 1.

Again: this breaks a *staggering* amount of extant Lojban. =A0Why? You've given no reason why this is so amazingly important. =A0So
different words have different semantics; who cares?

Having said that, I'd support this for the sake of consistency if I
thought there was any chance at all of it being approved by either
the BPFK as a whole or the LLG membership. =A0I don't think there is.

> a'o - ia'o (hopefully vs. I hope that...)

There's no need to have a new set of words; just an irrealis mark= er,
i.e. {da'i}.

-Robin

I'm going to agree with Robin on this.
<= br>Also, did you mean {da'oi}, the cmavo .stelas. created, or did you r= eally mean {da'i} - "supposing"?