From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Jun 15 12:21:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 19:21:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 13381 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 19:21:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 19:21:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout3.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.168) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 19:21:09 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5FJJih12464 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:19:45 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15Az5V-0000Lc-00 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:16:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:16:57 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The "system" of attitudinals Message-ID: <20010615151657.A1307@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:04:43PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > known cases of inadequacy (a'o) not dealt with Please clarify - why is a'o still considered inadequate? Because people want to use it in two ways? At the beginning of a sentence, a'o is defined by the Book to be a propositional attitude indicator. In its own sentence, a'o hopes for something unspecified and so can be used to express a simple feeling of hope. What's the problem? -- Rob Speer