DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;        b=o2d4vpWa/cYSEqNKTcyM2E+AtB00yNYtNR1EQFNrAEu8z9gLSLWI2ejrHAxYcLZgNtb63M7cceV41KciCPMkACbJqcMWmrt/9tv09PGzivyxZA5UL3gqSfEgdIoHVmYD79DvjlELQXNUHhY5vvTO9mAbaDEq2iOyrYuDbV9qYg8=
Message-ID: <925d17560801231145q322061bbmae45239d6b36ced@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:45:13 -0300
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: zo .e'e
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.1.00.0801230917190.26682@grid.cec.wustl.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080105225008.k2wyw47jywwowc44@webmail.ixkey.info>	 <925d17560801060549r667c5c87kcdbf542852bce09d@mail.gmail.com>	 <20080107141153.pki44f5eassogwc4@webmail.ixkey.info>	 <925d17560801071444k71b98c50h38879b1c9451ba3e@mail.gmail.com>	 <alpine.LRH.1.00.0801220947570.20405@grid.cec.wustl.edu>	 <97f5058c0801221740n27fa9667ibdde79f2bc08f712@mail.gmail.com>	 <alpine.LRH.1.00.0801230917190.26682@grid.cec.wustl.edu>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2537

On 1/23/08, adam@wustl.edu <adam@wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> They need to be clarified, definitely.  That's the whole purpose of the byfy.
> But that doesn't mean they should be replaced with completely different
> definitions based very vaguely on keyword similarity and trying to make
> patterns where none existed before.

"Completely" different would be bad, yes, but some patterns did exist
before. For example CLL says:

<<
As mentioned at the beginning of Section 2, attitudinals may be divided
into two groups, the pure emotion indicators explained in that section,
and a contrasting group which may be called the ``propositional attitude
indicators''. These indicators establish an internal, hypothetical world
which the speaker is reacting to, distinct from the world as it really is.
Thus we may be expressing our attitude towards ``what the world would
be like if ...'', or more directly stating our attitude towards making the
potential world a reality.
>>

CLL puts {.e'e} in this second group, which fits more with the
exhortation to make a potential world a reality than with the
"this is what I'm doing and I feel competent about it" sense.

> First of all, I consider self-exhortation to be completely different from
> competence.  One is about will to do something, the other is ability.

I would say {.ai} is more about will to do something. Exhortation is
not so much about will itself as about instilling will. And ability is
a precondition for exhortation, as well as for permission, obligation,
request and suggestion. You can't felicitously allow/exhort/obligate/
request/suggest to someone they do something if you don't believe
they are capable of doing it.

> Secondly, the big difference is that the change would alter the meaning of
> existing text, in a way that is not backwards compatible.

But there is existing text with the exhortation meaning too. And the
most official example, the one in CLL:

3.9)  e'e mi lifri tu'a do
    [competence] I experience something-related-to you
    I feel up to dealing with you.

is not interpreted as "I'm dealing with you, and this makes me feel
competent" or "and I feel I'm doing it competently", but rather more
as a taking breath and "ok, let's deal with you now!" which is a kind
of self-exhortation.

> That sort of
> change should not be taken lightly at all.
>
> I'm getting off topic, so I'll stop ranting, but I just wanted to bring it up.

This probably belongs in the BPFK discussion forum, but everyone
seems to be asleep over there. :)

mu'o mi'e xorxes