From richardt@flash.net Tue Jun 12 21:07:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 04:07:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 34418 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 04:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 04:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 04:04:36 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.103.227]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5D44YQ62216 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:04:34 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout4-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B26D5AC.309E02EB@flash.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:53:32 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd Craig wrote: > 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? I'm tied to a chair and there's a man, a gun and a hack-saw in the room. I {a'o} that he uses the gun and not the hacksaw, but it would in no way make me {.ui}. I believe you can also actually {a'o} for something that makes you less happy than alternatives, for some ulterier motive (the 'greater good' sort of thing).