Re: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i}

[Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>]

> It makes sense, and I think that's how it works for the most part.
> Where we may disagree is in that I think the cu'i point in many cases
> (not always) is qualitatively different from just being the zero point
> on a scale. An extreme example might be "ba'a cu'i", which I don't
> know how you could fit as the zero point of the "ba'a" scale,

You're right.  It doesn't work for {ba'a cu'i}.  I hadn't thought of that.  That
one really does have a very non-compositional meaning.  We would have
to abandon it or make it a special case (ugh).

So I guess that's that.

> but even
> without going to such extreme cases, something like "modesty" is not
> quite the same as mere absence of pride, it's more like an extreme
> minimization or tempering, toning down, mitigating of pride (much more
> than "ru'e"). Or somehing like that.

Then I don't want {o'a cu'i} to mean "modesty", because I want it to
mean "absence of pride", which is close enough to "modesty" for me.
(But maybe you've changed my mind, now, with {ba'a cu'i}.)

But then so if {o'a cu'i} is a distinct attitude of its own, why can't we
modify it with {sai} and {ru'e}?

Why not {o'a cu'i sai} for "strong modesty"?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.