From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Jun 14 12:17:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 19:17:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 13065 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 19:17:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 19:17:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 19:17:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5EJH1m02399 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:17:01 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010614142730.00d1caf0@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 11:33 PM 06/13/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >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". > > But plausibly it can mean "I am happy now" about a situation (bridi) that I > am presently considering which is not a present reality, which > pragmatically often means "I would be happy if". Am I to understand that ".ui mi klama" can mean "I am going, and I am happy about it", and ALSO mean "I would be happy if I went, not asserting that I am going"? ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!