From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 12 17:43:58 2001
Return-Path: <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 00:43:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 64920 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 00:36:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 00:36:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 00:36:48 -0000
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 159yeI-00054b-00 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:36:42 -0700
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:36:42 -0700
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals
Message-ID: <20010612173642.E14438@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0106122017540.19842-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0106122017540.19842-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:18:39PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> 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?

Depends on your definition of 'exact', but thus far I've seen no real
exceptions.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/

