From rob@twcny.rr.com Sun Jun 10 18:17:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 01:17:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 3788 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 01:17:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 01:17:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.168) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 01:17:31 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5B1G1A09176 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:16:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:16:03 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 159GGc-0000EX-00 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:13:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:13:17 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010610211317.C684@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 08:50:24PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > > la ritcrd cusku di'e > > > > >The attitudinal placement idea solves the same problem IMO opinion, > > >which is why I think it would be a fine way to go as well. > > > > Maybe it is, I haven't had time yet to look at how it would work > > for more than the couple of examples presented. Would it apply > > to {xu} as well, for example? > > > > In usage, when people want to ask about the truth of a bridi, they put xu > in front. When they want to ask about the validity of a certain component > of the bridi, they put xu right after it. This sounds quite like the new > proposal to me. That's funny, I thought it did just the opposite, which is why I wrote a long message in which I changed my mind about which proposal I liked better. {xu} makes the statement a question no matter where it is in the sentence. It's a _different_ question for different places, but it's still a question. No matter where {xu} is, it never expresses a feeling. Though I suppose it could if you put it alone in a sentence. Heh. {xusai} - I'm feeling very yes/no-questioning. -- Rob Speer