Talk:BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers
Posted by arj on Mon 17 of July, 2006 20:07 GMT posts: 953 Mostly good, solid work here.
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.
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
Re: BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers
arj Posted by arj on Sat 18 of Aug., 2007 17:01 GMT posts: 953 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"