I think that for brevity, it's fine to use a gismu like {cpina}, but only through context (which may be clarified through use of attitudinals) will it point to any of the several narrower English glosses.
mu'a
[after taking a whiff of a piping hot linguini in vodka sauce with sharp parmigiano cheese]
{ .i cpina .au cai } "Mmm! What an aroma!" (meaning smells powerful, probably good)
[after eating too much wasabi, crying as you blow your nose]
{ .i cpina .oi ro'o } "Agh, that's painfully spicy" (meaning tastes hot-spicy, probably bad)
[after taking a swig of strong vodka]
{ cpina } "that's good stuff." (meaning it's flavorful, probably good here)
[after your friend takes of their shoes]
{ cpina } "that's fragrant." (meaning it's pungent, probably bad here)
co'o mi'e .ku'us
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 06:30, Christopher Doty
<suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hrm... Okay, I guess this is the same issue I was having with
person--namely, it's not clear what definition of the English word the
gismu has.
Is it best to assume, then, that gismu are essentially free of any
connotations about desirability or undesirability (unless the gismu is
actually about such a thing, of course)? So any of the connotations
about the desirability or lack thereof would best be accomplished with
attitudinals as I did before (+ cu)?
Chris
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 14:13, Alan Post <
alanpost@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
> Irritating could be a description of the effect that spicy food has
> in your mouth, which could rightly be described as irritating, even
> when the endorphins generated make that something you desire.
>
> Something being an irritant, in a chemical sense, doesn't imply a
> value judgement about desirability.
>
> -Alan