Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

[Richard Todd <richardt@flash.net>]

Craig wrote:
> Why do we need a'o? isn't it under any of these proposals just a redundancy
> that could be a non-assertive .ui or other attitudinal and therefore a
> cultural bias from English, which keeps hope and would-be-pleasure separate?


I'm tied to a chair and there's a man, a gun and a hack-saw in the
room.  I {a'o} that he uses the gun and not the hacksaw, but it would in
no way make me {.ui}.  

I believe you can also actually {a'o} for something that makes you less
happy than alternatives, for some ulterier motive (the 'greater good'
sort of thing).