From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jul 31 09:14:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 16:14:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 50217 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 16:14:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 16:14:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 16:14:00 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.129.239465d (4233) for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <129.239465d.28983341@aol.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:13:53 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaking Lojban (was: LogFest news To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_129.239465d.28983341_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_129.239465d.28983341_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/31/2001 9:44:58 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > All of us were stumbling along with a literary style of Lojban, > over-formal and over-complex, that would never be applied in conversation. > I am convinced now that spoken Lojban (which, optimally, is used on irc > too) busts the main selbri down to an attitudinal. This is usually > possible. For instance, "mi na birti le du'u" --> "ju'ocu'i". "mi djica le > nu" --> ".au". Our lack of facility with these attitudinals made our > spoken utterances pedantic and imposed that our listeners usually parse > one more set of cmavo pairs they wouldn't otherwise have needed to. > While I am sure that xod is right about the excess of attitudinal predicates in speech, I wish to offer a two-fold warning. First, this does NOT mean that attitudinal cmavo mean the same as various brivla. That is, the better sentences xod envisions will say something different from the prolix ones he regrets. On the other hand, the shorter, simpler, ones will usually come closer to saying what speaker intended than the more elaborate ones used. Secondly, this does not mean that the actually used forms were malglico just because they follow the English form rather than the English sense (as they do) but that English form is ambiguous and the usage results from following the wrong sense of the form. So, as usual, use English with caution and understand it before translating it (and before incorporating that translation into your Lojban idiolect). In fact, we are much more inclined to talk about what we opine, etc., than about the fact that we opine it, and thus use attitudinals for these attitudes much more often than brivla. English just happens to the same form for both in many cases. --part1_129.239465d.28983341_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/31/2001 9:44:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


All of us were stumbling along with a literary style of Lojban,
over-formal and over-complex, that would never be applied in conversation.
I am convinced now that spoken Lojban (which, optimally, is used on irc
too) busts the main selbri down to an attitudinal. This is usually
possible. For instance, "mi na birti le du'u" --> "ju'ocu'i". "mi djica le
nu" --> ".au". Our lack of facility with these attitudinals made our
spoken utterances pedantic and imposed that our listeners usually parse
one more set of cmavo pairs they wouldn't otherwise have needed to.

While I am sure that xod is right about the excess of attitudinal predicates
in speech, I wish to offer a two-fold warning.  First, this does NOT mean
that attitudinal cmavo mean the same as various brivla.  That is, the better
sentences xod envisions will say something different from the prolix ones he
regrets.  On the other hand, the shorter, simpler, ones will usually come
closer to saying what speaker intended than the more elaborate ones used.  
Secondly, this does not mean that the actually used forms were malglico just
because they follow the English form rather than the English sense (as they
do) but that English form is ambiguous and the usage results from following
the wrong sense of the form.  So, as usual, use English with caution and
understand it before translating it (and before incorporating that
translation into your Lojban idiolect).  In fact, we are much more inclined
to talk about what we opine, etc., than about the fact that we opine it, and
thus use attitudinals for these attitudes much more often than brivla.  
English just happens to the same form for both in many cases.
--part1_129.239465d.28983341_boundary--