Talk:BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers

Archived Tiki forum discussion for BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers. Original authors, UTC times, and post IDs are retained below.

BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers (Tiki thread #5872)

Re: BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers

arj · 2006-07-17 20:07 UTC · Tiki post #5873 (reply to #5872)

Mostly good, solid work here.

Some comments/suggestion:

I am not sure "focused" is the right word. The CLL talks a lot about categories. Perhaps something like "Specifies the category of the preceding attitudinal as [...]", and the case of a bare specifier as "Used without a preceding attitudinal, expresses a non-specific emotion in the [...] category".

If you intend for fu'e/fu'o to be nested, you must include a rationale. Also, you must describe the semantic effect of attaching attitudinals to both fu'e and fu'o.

In the cases where the cmavo list is more specific than the CLL, you should note this under Impact.

-arj

Re: BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers

arj · 2007-08-18 17:01 UTC · Tiki post #6251 (reply to #5872)

Adam, please address these issues:

• the "focus" wording
• rationale for nestability of fu'e/fu'o
• the "XXXXXX" shouldn't be in the definition for ro'u nai
• ".iu ro'o cu'i" is a typo for ".iu ro'u cu'i"

-arj