Subject: Re: [lojban] The new approach to attitudinals

From: Richard Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:05:46 -0500

Invent Yourself wrote:
> doh! Looks like I posted but understood the above in reverse. I think it
> makes more sense in the reverse. Truth value is a property of an entire
> sentence, therefore affecting truth value (a'o = I hope that, but I'm not
> asserting that) should be performed on ".i". If you have a feeling
> associated with a certain word in that sentence, then stick the cmavo at
> the word that makes you feel something. Stick it to the selbri if the
> relationship makes you feel it.

It agree it's better that way. You could also put a non-altering
attitudinal on the whole sentence by putting a {vau .a'o} at the end,
right?

So, that leaves the difference between this and adding a cmavo suffix to
possibilities like:

le mi patfu cu dunda le karce .a'o mi
(my father gives me a car, which is consistent with my hopes--emphasis
on the fact that it was a car I was hoping to get, and not just any gift
from my father--)

le mi patfu cu dunda le karce .a'oSFX mi
(loosely - Should my father give me something, i hope it's a
car--emphasis that it's the car I'm hoping for more than that my father
will give me something--)

So, there are potentially more things one can say with combinations of
suffix and placement. I personally like to have more options, but at
this point I concede that there are somewhat diminishing returns. I'd
be fine with the placement convention if that's the general opinion.

Richard