From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jun 13 16:33:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 23:33:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 23608 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 23:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 23:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.247) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 23:33:23 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:33:23 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.98 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:33:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.98] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:33:23 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2001 23:33:23.0877 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CFFB550:01C0F461] From: "Jorge Llambias" la kreig cusku di'e >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? All the proposals that have {ui} able to mean "would-be-happiness" are missing an important point about attitudinals. Attitudinals are for the expression of the immediate, present attitude. {ui} is for "I am happy now", never for "I would be happy if". Similarly, {a'o} is for "I hope now", which happens to be the same, or very similar to, "I would be happy if", that's why it is a different attitude from {ui}. ui: The world as I want it is the actual world: I'm happy! a'o: The world as I want it is compatible with the actual world, but I don't know for sure that it is the actual world: I hope! au: The world as I want it may not even be compatible with the actual world: I wish! As for assertions, let's consider a few indicators of selma'o UI: i xu do klama le zarci i e'u do klama le zarci i ai mi klama le zarci i la'a mi klama le zarci None of those are assertions. One is a question, another is a suggestion, another is an intention, and the last one is an estimation. Now consider these: i ju'a do klama le zarci i pe'i do klama le zarci i li'a do klama le zarci i ju'o do klama le zarci i ia do klama le zarci All of those are assertions. An opinion, a certainty, a belief, all of them are some kind of assertion. A bare bridi: i do klama le zarci, is also an assertion. But the bridi together with an attitudinal may or may not be an assertion, depending on the attitudinal, and yes, it is a part of the meaning of the attitudinal whether or not it effaces the assertiveness of the bare bridi. But in any case, it is the bridi, never the attitudinal that is asserted! If someone needs to experiment with weird stuff like assertive questions, assertive hopes, and so on, it is not that difficult to achieve: {ju'a xu}, {ju'a a'o}, and so on, there is no need for complicated positional rules. The position of the UI cmavo already has a simple meaning as a focus on the marked word. I am finding this discussion extremely useful, by the way. I don't think we ever discussed attitudinals in such detail, and it really does help a lot that we do. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.