[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI
I've given this some thought, and here is how I have come to peace with
irrealis. In my view, bridi are not necessarily assertions. Instead (as is
said over and over in introductory materials), they represent relationship
among entities. There are many, many different reasons why one would talk
about such a relationship, so while any stated bridi is referencing a
(potential) state of the world, the UI attached show how that state interacts
with the mind of the speaker. Some states of mind are more common for states
of the world that are assumed not to presently be true (hope, for instance),
and these are typically considered irrealis. But I can feel hopeful about
things that have happened (or may have happened, but I don't know that yet),
and I can feel sad about things that won't happen. Some UI, like {da'i}, very
*strongly* indicate conterfactuality ("the speaker believes that this is *not*
the case"), and some are strongly realis ({ju'a}, which is often considered
the default if there isn't a context to imply something else).
That said, then, there is not reason that {.ai mi klama} can't be interpreted
as being similar to an English "I intend to go". Specifically, it invokes the
relationship of me going (to an unspecified location, from an unspecified
location, via an unspecified route, using an unspecified method of
transportation) and says of that state of affairs that my mental state toward
it is one of intent. Since *usually* intent is reserved for things that
haven't happened, then under most circumstances it's "I intend to go", but it
could also be "I went intentionally", or any of the other dozens of
combinations of tense, number, aspect, and counterfactuality that context may
present. You can be very specific about all of them if you want to, and
nothing is stopping you from using {.i mi pacna lo da'i nu mi citka} or {.i mi
citka gi'e cinmo lo ka pacna} if you want to be very specific about what
is happening and who is feeling what, but most of the time, you don't.
In summary, all attitudinals are irrealis. Some are more irrealis than others.
I don't particularly care what goes in what numbered categories (UI1 vs UI2,
etc), but I will *strongly* oppose an attempt to redefine existing words with
new, explicitly realis meanings, when there is no need.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Lindar wrote:
I think I've figured out what I mean.
{.ai} should be "intentionally", not "I intend to..." like an
evidential.
{.a'o} should be "hopefully", not "I hope..." like an evidential.
I said something earlier today after getting way too stressed out
about this (If you couldn't tell, I have some issues with social
interaction. I'm really working on it.) that embodied what I think is
the correct usage. It was something to the tune of {.i mi nitcu lo
nu .ai klama le zarci pu lo nu tervecnu lo bisyladru kei pu lo nu
jundi le skina be lo tcebarda remymi'i}. If we went with the
'standard' definition, it would mean something like "I need to intend
to...", which isn't at all what I meant. I wanted to express that I
was doing everything intentionally/that I felt intent about it, which
is what UI1 should be. If people absolutely need that shortcut, then
why don't we make -evidentials- specifically for these definitions and
make all of UI1 what I've been saying it should be?
.ai'i - I intend...
.a'oi - I hope...
.e'ai - I permit...
.e'oi - I request...
.e'ui - I suggest...
.ei'i - I should...
I think this would be a fantastic addition to the language, and would
resolve the issue on both ends of the spectrum. For those that do not
like the irrealis UI, it would give them their intended meaning of UI
back. For those that specifically want these irrealis UI, we could
make them into evidentials, which provides a grammatical contiguity,
and makes updating reading material very easy as it would take a
simple find-and-replace. This proposal, to me, seems like it would
satisfy everybody involved. I feel very strongly about this, and would
greatly appreciate constructive feedback.
I do very much apologise for any perceived 'attitude'. Also thank you
to Lojbab for explaining very well what he explained. That makes
sense, and gave me the idea for this proposal. I also would like to
apologise for beating a dead zombie horse.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
Red meat is NOT bad for you. Now, blue-green meat, that's REALLY BAD
for you. --Tommy Smothers
--
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.