From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 17:04:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 Jun 2001 00:04:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 29924 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2001 00:04:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Jun 2001 00:04:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.54) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2001 00:04:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:04:21 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.57 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:04:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.57] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] The "system" of attitudinals Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:04:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2001 00:04:21.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4DB2BF0:01C0F5F7] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >2) Different functions of attitudinals marked by different positions in >sentence Disadvantages: The present corpus (several thousand pages) >would have >to be checked at least, and probably revised into conformity. Are we talking about all UIs, or just those that start with a vowel? I am assuming that we want a general rule for all of them. If that is the case, none of the positional proposals addressed the main issue: Some UIs are used with clearly assertive function, starting of course with {ju'a}, which has that as its sole function, but also je'u, ji'a, ju'o, ka'u, ku'i, li'a, mu'a, pe'i, si'a, ta'o, za'a, zu'u to name the most obvious (in fact I believe most UIs don't touch the assertiveness of the bare bridi). Some of them just as clearly remove the assertiveness of the bare bridi: ba'u, da'i, ki'a, la'a, xu are the most obvious. If we impose a rule that a UI at the beginning always removes assertiveness or always maintains assertiveness, then we necessarily have to re-learn the use of one of those groups, and there are some very frequently used words in both of them. That is my main problem with those rules: they are given from above with no consideration for what is already there, and no clear explanation of the advantages. It is not enough to look at one or two attitudinals and generalize from there, we need to understand the whole picture before trying to "simplify" it. I love simple rules, as long as they make sense, and I haven't as yet seen the sense of forcing all UIs to behave in the same way with respect to assertiveness. >2.5 (not a serious proposal yet) keep the present system with the addition >of a small number (max at 4) additional flags to indicate that an >attitudinal >is being used outside its usual role. Isn't {ju'a} enough to add assertiveness to those that don't have it, and {ju'anai} to remove it from those that do? I am not saying it is, just considering the possibility. That allows for all the "Lojbanic" effects expected, like asserting questions and requests, and not asserting truths. I would like it if we could eventually move to the next question, what happens when we run two attitudinals together, but as often happens we can't even agree on the basic one! For example, I think neither {pe'i la'a} nor {la'a pe'i} are assertive. This suggests to me that indicators like {la'a} remove assertiveness, while those like {pe'i} simply leave what's there unchanged. Just a first thought on the matter. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.