[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] The "system" of attitudinals
la pycyn cusku di'e
> I have only seen claims that such use would be possible,
John Cowan on July 8
<That is the "propositional attitude" sense of "a'o". But it too
has a "pure emotion sense" as well: "a'o mi cevni le du'u
la cevni cu zasti" probably does not mean "I hope that I believe
that God exists," but rather " believe that God exists
(which gives me hope).">
I think there are other cases from John and Lojbab.
Yes, that's what I meant, theoretically made up examples. John
was not using it in a real conversation.
<In fact, nobody has explicitly mentioned yet another possibility
for {a'o}: Not "I hope I go to the store", not "I go to the store,
which gives me hope", but "I go to the store with hope".
Of course, this one only works when {mi} is part of the bridi,
and preferrably as an agent, which is a strong recommendation
against its use.>
Yes, no one has. Can you explain further, since I am not sure just what is
involved.
I think what I meant is that it would be a mistake to use
attitudinals to describe the feelings of the agent of the
action qua agent of the action, just because it happens
to be the speaker.
So, {ui mi klama le zarci} reflects my happiness at my going
to the store, it does not say that I go happily to the store.
Similarly {ei mi klama le zarci} indicates that there is an
obligation that I go to the store, not that I go to the store
feeling obliged.
As maikl correctly points out, "I go happily" is something like
{mi gleki klama}, and "I go obliged" would be {mi bilga klama}.
This interpretational trap can be avoided by not using examples
with {mi}, so that there is no confusion of speaker and agent.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.