Re: Indicator contour modifiers

[lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)]

> The default is current context, with no indication whether this is
> a transient emotion, or one that you've had for a long time (and
> presumably will indefintiely); i.e. we don't distinguish between
> xu'a and xu'u. HOWEVER long scope is given in forethought by the
> attitudinal brackets (fu'a and fu'e, or something like that - no
> list handy) which overrides the default current context.

> If you use the open bracket followed by the attitudinal, this gives
> the effect (I think) of your 'start of emotion' xu'i.  If you use
> the attitudinal followed by the closer, you get the end-of-emotion
> xu'o.

  Do these brackets define contextual scope or time scope ? I think we
  need both.

> The big negative of all this is that the attitudinal scope markers
> apply to all attitudinals, not just the one, so you could not
> express different scopes for different emotions.

  This is a problem at the textual scope level anyhow.

> Your proposal gives a goos deal of scope flexibility, and it may be
> more natural than the untested logical scope delimiters we have
> now, in that you determine scope at the time you express the
> emotion, not some time before or after.  I like this part.  What
> I'm not sure is whether it is worth 5 cmavo to replace the
> existing 2.  If the number can be condensed, I might be more
> willing to support it; e.g.
> xu'a = default = current scope
> xu'anai = transient feeling, no effective scope
> xu'acai = global scope (i.e. I generally feel this way all the
>   time, but I'm only happening to mention it here.

> I guess actually the neutral would be xu'acu'i, and would normally
> never be stated, so xu'a could mean a longer than current context,
> but unspecified scope.

  This is OK.

> Then xu'e means emotion starts, and xu'enai means emotion ends, as
> of the current context (or as modified by the xu'a value).

  I would have 2 cmavo, my original xu'i and xu'o. This would be
  clearer, with no inversion, and allow for

     .iuxu'inai    my love doesn't cease in spite of ...
     .iuxu'onai    my love doesn't increase ...
     .iuxu'oxu'i   (replaces the original xu'u)
     .iuxu'ixu'o   (temporary depression)

> If this seems to fit what you are proposing, we thus cover all of
> the possibilities of the current system, and then some, with no
> additional cmavo.

   I'd add 3 cmavo - instead of the originally proposed 5

> The main negative is that UI scope includes discursives, which were
> more amenable to the existing system; i.e. .iku'i is a 'but', but
> you could extend that 'but' for more than one sentence with the
> open scoper, knowing that you were going to control that scope by
> just using the closer. The replacement system would require you to
> repeat the ku'i followed by the end-of-indicator, to indicate
> close scope.

   I'd keep the present scopers.

> Again, I'm not sure how much of a problem this is - if your scopes
> match up at all with the Lojban syntax, as is likely, there will
> be some construct you can glue the indicator/discursive onto, up
> to and including tu'e/tu'u. Thus the argument we used with the
> condensation of figuaratives to only "pe'a" would apply here.  If
> you can glue the indicator, whether attitudinal or discursive,
> onto a structure, your current context ois the scope of that
> construct, and you do not need any of the contours.  Then you only
> need to mark contoures for irregualr scopes.

   What I'm proposing is, as far as I can see, totally orthogonal to
   the present system. It adds a way to transcend the context of the
   text or conversation and doesn't affect the scoping of other
   indicators in the text (and vice versa). I'd put these additional
   cmavo into selma'o UI so they'd cause no trouble at syntactical
   level. Used alone they'd include an implicit unspecific feeling:

     ko'a xu'a = I've always had this funny feeling about ko'a

   These cmavo would correspond to the ROhA series but define an
   emotional time scale (not exactly, as I do make a causal link
   between xu'i/xu'o and the 'event' described in the associated
   bridi/sentence - this is essential, a really past love doesn't
   need an attitudinal, a relative clause will do). The following
   two bridi are quite different:

        ko'a noi mi pu prami cu broda
        ko'a .iuxu'i broda

   The first one states two facts, the second one states a fact
   (ko'a broda) and adds my emotional reaction to it: I have been
   in love but now I feel I cannot anymore.

   There is also a fundamental difference between the next two:

        ko'a noi mi prami cu broda
        ko'a .iuxu'a broda

   Again the first one states two mutually independent facts,
   the second states a single fact and additionally indicates an
   attitude which transcends the scope of the discourse - only
   this time there is no causal link.



   Personally I feel we can afford to spend 3 cmavo.

     Veijo
------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi