From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 12 20:27:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 03:27:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 41559 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 03:27:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 03:27:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 03:27:19 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15A1JO-00063u-00 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:27:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:27:18 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010612202718.G14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <20010612170520.X14438@digitalkingdom.org> <20010612175324.F14438@digitalkingdom.org> <20010612221638.B4469@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010612221638.B4469@twcny.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 05:53:24PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 05:05:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Um. Would the real Robin Lee Powell please stand up? > > > Here's an extension that I think I like: > > > > > > 1. In a sentence by itself, UI is a bare emotion. > > > 2. At the front of a sentence, UI modifies the assertive nature of the > > > whole bridi. > > > 3. After a particular sumti, UI modifies the assertive nature of the > > > element, but leaves the assertive nature of the bridi alone. > > > 4. After the brivla, UI does not modify the assertive nature at all. > > > > > > Note that #2 contravenes the book. > > > Which is stupid. So, how about this: > > > > 1. In a sentence by itself, UI is a bare emotion. > > > > 2. At the front of a sentence, UI does not modify the assertive nature > > of anything at all. > > > > 3. After a particular sumti, UI modifies the assertive nature of the > > element, but leaves the assertive nature of the bridi alone. > > > > 4. After the brivla, UI modifies the assertive of the bridi as a whole. > > Your #2, on the other hand, contradicts actual usage as well as the book > (consider 'xu'). > > I get the idea that if we follow the Book to the letter, we get the ambiguous > mess we have now. I think that if the o* and u* attitudinals were assumed to > have no significant effect on the assertive nature of a sentence, it would > bring things into line nicely while only contradicting the Book in a part > that's vague anyway. I don't want to use categories like that at all, if possible. Besides: .ui do klama I'd be happy if 'do klama' was true. Is pretty useful, even if it does overlap with .a'o. -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/