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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> 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).

ba'acu'i is weird.

It makes it difficult to say you don't expect something, or that you
forgot something. Although I suppose "ba'anai cu'i" is still available
for not remembering.

I suppose "ba'aru'ecai" is as close as you can get to not expecting.


> 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}?

We can. CAIs can be piled on indefinitely.

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

That's how I would understand it. Although it doesn't seem very modest
to express modesty so strongly. Let's say "u'o cu'i sai" for extreme
shyness instead.

> Also: if {cu'i} doesn't do it, how do we indicate absence of an emotion?

I would have said "be'u", but apparently someone feels very strongly
that "be'u" cannot apply to other attitudinals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.