Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

[Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:27:18PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > I get the idea that if we follow the Book to the letter, we get the ambiguous
> > mess we have now. I think that if the o* and u* attitudinals were assumed to
> > have no significant effect on the assertive nature of a sentence, it would
> > bring things into line nicely while only contradicting the Book in a part
> > that's vague anyway.
> 
> I don't want to use categories like that at all, if possible.  Besides:
> 
> .ui do klama
> I'd be happy if 'do klama' was true.

The problem is that you're translating the attitudinals to English sentences.
How about translating them to Lojban sentences?

.a'o do klama -> mi pacna lenu do klama
.ui do klama -> mi gleki lenu do klama

However, you're translating it to "mi gleki calenu do klama". So, if we think
about the Lojban meaning of these attitudinals and not the English one, the
suggestion you had at first works _and_ doesn't contradict usage. 
-- 
Rob Speer