Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:35:35 -0400

> .ui do klama
> I'd be happy if 'do klama' was true.

So would I. .ui do klama? well, I'd be happy if that meant do klama was true
and 0h by the way .ui
Now as for what you meant, well, having that separate from a'o is just a
huge cultural bias from English.

Now, as for r's comments on my proposal:
Right on! that's the sort of thing I meant when I said it needed work.

Now as for the proposal you included: .i .ui mi klama has in every usage
I've seen meant that mi klama - so that goes against how it's been done
already. Swap your rules and I like it.

Why do we need a'o? isn't it under any of these proposals just a redundancy
that could be a non-assertive .ui or other attitudinal and therefore a
cultural bias from English, which keeps hope and would-be-pleasure separate?

--la kreig.daniyl

'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci
.i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi'
-la djimis.BYFet

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji: 0x5C3A1E74