[no subject]

[Erik Rauch <rauch%CS.YALE.EDU@FINHUTC.hut.fi>]

| Erik Rauch                                              rauch-erik@yale.edu |
lojbab:
>For your consideration:
>
>re'u (assuming I am correct that it is available) as a 7th member of the
>emotion categorizers including ro'V and re'e and labelling expressions
>of 'political' attitude.
>
>Political expression is a real part of language, usually clearly
>recognized as such.  It is normally distinct from social emotions or
>expressions.  Political attitudes are often strongly held and strongly
>felt - a comparison with spiritual/religious attitude expressed through
>re'e is certainly in order...


I tend to stay away the existing ro'V series (well, when I start writing
significantly, I will. :), but I think they are tolerable to have as part
of the language. But not the proposed cmavo.

The reason: This discinction is highly culture-specific - in this case, to
the dominant "western" media culture (also to be found all over the world).
What I'm saying is, it is an artifact specifically of our twentieth century
culture that we consider political to be somehow seperate from ordinary
reality.

You could use the same argument against ro'a, ro'e, etc., but they have
more validity to them as "spheres", and incidentally, they show up as
such in many different cultures in history. And you can simply elect not to
use them, but having the political cmavo in there would make the other 6
look different -- somehow more, specific, more pragmatic? More concrete.

I have tried to write about this in English in several different venues,
and it has always been very difficult to express the absurdity of the
distinction. Nevertheless, it just does not make sense.

About your example of expressing political agreement coupled with mental
unease: this is really a kind of shorthand, drawing on one of the several
meanings of the word political. What you really want to say is, "I disagree
with the proposal, but in order to preserve unity [or, more often, votes],
I will say I agree with it." By contrast, the other "sphere" attitudinals
are not shorthand for anything that can be said so plainly. Your other
examples did not seem different enough from ordinary expression to support
the addition of the cmavo.