Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 10:34:10 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
> Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:07:53 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
> >
> >     Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> >      > If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then
> >     why there
> >      > is no gismu for "intention"?
> >
> >     The intended gismu corresponding to intention was "platu", or perhaps
> >     some compound thereof.  I'll accept the possible use of zukte proposed
> >     by someone else, though I think intention need not be purposive either.
> >
> >      > {zukte} = "to intend"? the definition says nothing about that. It
> >     should be clarified, that is changed.
> >
> >     The gismu list is baselined. We haven't allowed changes merely for
> >     clarity for nearly 20 years.
> >
> > Here is the lack of clarity, actually. If there is no equivalent of
> > {.ai} in gismu space we must create it.
>
> I disagree.  It is NOT essential that concepts be expressed in gismu, if 
> they can be expressed in reasonably short, and possibly metaphorical, lujvo.

How would you say "I was gonna..."?

> One thing I did not mention last post: gismu, and brivla in general, 
> express claims.  Attitudinals do not express claims.  The set of claims 
> that we might express about the world does not match the set of emotions 
> that we might feel about the world.  Yes, it would sometimes be useful 
> to have words to talk about those emotions, umm, unemotionally.  But I 
> doubt that such analytical discussion of emotions is all that common, 
> and hence there is no need for short words or expressions to facilitate 
> such discussion.  Indeed, one could probably get by with "cinmo la'ezo 
> .ai." without need for any word invention at all.
>
> > If it's {zukte}
>
> It isn't.
>
> >then we must clarify it's real meaning.
>
> Emotional expressions do not necessarily have "meaning".  If they do, it 
> isn't entirely  clear that what I *mean* in expressing "ai" or "io" or 
> "iu" is necessarily what you *mean* if you express them.
>
> > The question is pretty straightforward: How do I say "I intend ..."  not
> > using {.ai}
>
> You most certainly would not say that using "ai".  You express intention 
> using "ai".  You do not claim to intend using "ai".
>
> > and having in mind it's clean meaning with no extra implications?
>
> Attitudinals have not clean meaning, and aren't intended to.  Any 
> implications that they have are purely emotive.
>
> lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/e4q8XxoX_X8J.
 
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.