From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jun 16 17:10:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 17 Jun 2001 00:10:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 7600 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2001 00:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jun 2001 00:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.245) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2001 00:10:05 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:10:05 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.40 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:10:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.40] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] The "system" of attitudinals Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:10:05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2001 00:10:05.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC9F43C0:01C0F6C1] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > I have only seen claims that such use would be possible, > >John Cowan on July 8 >has a "pure emotion sense" as well: "a'o mi cevni le du'u >la cevni cu zasti" probably does not mean "I hope that I believe >that God exists," but rather " believe that God exists >(which gives me hope)."> > >I think there are other cases from John and Lojbab. Yes, that's what I meant, theoretically made up examples. John was not using it in a real conversation. >for {a'o}: Not "I hope I go to the store", not "I go to the store, >which gives me hope", but "I go to the store with hope". >Of course, this one only works when {mi} is part of the bridi, >and preferrably as an agent, which is a strong recommendation >against its use.> > >Yes, no one has. Can you explain further, since I am not sure just what is >involved. I think what I meant is that it would be a mistake to use attitudinals to describe the feelings of the agent of the action qua agent of the action, just because it happens to be the speaker. So, {ui mi klama le zarci} reflects my happiness at my going to the store, it does not say that I go happily to the store. Similarly {ei mi klama le zarci} indicates that there is an obligation that I go to the store, not that I go to the store feeling obliged. As maikl correctly points out, "I go happily" is something like {mi gleki klama}, and "I go obliged" would be {mi bilga klama}. This interpretational trap can be avoided by not using examples with {mi}, so that there is no confusion of speaker and agent. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.