From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Jun 12 17:34:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 00:34:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 81060 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 00:18:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 00:18:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 00:18:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5D0Id819877 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:18:39 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <20010612162911.S14438@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 06:08:03PM -0500, Richard Todd wrote: > > Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > >With a suffix, there's still context involved, but at least you know up > > > >front whether the speaker is asserting a true statement. This could go > > > >a long way towards clarity. > > > > > > Yes, but suffixes are expensive in terms of usability. I don't want > > > to have to use an affix every time I use an attitudinal, it takes > > > away the best thing that attitudinals have going for them: their > > > very compact form for the great amount of meaning that they add. > > > > I'd exchange an extra syllable for clarity any day. > > Anywhere else in the language, I'd agree. But not here. > > If you want total clarity, use the gismu equivalents of the > attitudinals. Do they all have exact gismu equivalents? ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!