Re: Indicator contour modifiers

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

I think the system already covers most of this, but I could be wrong.
I'd send this to Cowan for his comments as well.

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.

I guess we could express a transient by open-attitude-close.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

So the main question is whether this covers the full range of scopes and
contours one migft want.  I cna't say, and all of the above has been my
reaction straight off the cuuff, slowed only by an extremely slow system
response at the moment %^).

I'll send a copy of this to cowan, and also forward your message to him as
well, and we can get him into the discussion.  Hmm. Maybe Nick and Colin
too.  If we 4 agree, then posting to the list is a very good idea.  If not,
we probably have enough Lojbanic clout, to decide whether a consensus is
possible. OOps, can't count - that is 5, including you.

lojbab