Talk:BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 16:07 GMT posts: 2388 1. "Realis" needs an explanation: do these require that thesentences to which they are attached are true (or at least believed) or only that they are not fals(disbelieved)? Or something else?

2. The ranges often do not seem to cohere — the right member is not the opposit of the left (in any ordinary sense) nor the middle between. And it is hard to see how some of these — however interpreted — could be proper attitudes. So each needs a thorough explanation of just what is intended. Note: not "disinterested" but "uninterested" or, perhaps, "indifferent" (a different sense of "interest.")

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 18:15 GMT posts: 1912 > Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals > 1. "Realis" needs an explanation: do these require that thesentences to > which they are attached are true (or at least believed) or only that they are > not fals(disbelieved)? Or something else?

I think it means that they don't override the default illocutionary force of assertion. (An assertion need not be true or believed, of course.)

> 2. The ranges often do not seem to cohere — the right member is not the > opposit of the left (in any ordinary sense) nor the middle between. And it > is hard to see how some of these — however interpreted — could be proper > attitudes. So each needs a thorough explanation of just what is intended. > Note: not "disinterested" but "uninterested" or, perhaps, "indifferent" (a > different sense of "interest.")

I agree.

BTW, I am not shepherding this section, Realis Attitudinals, at least not at the moment. I just listed them here at Robin's request, to sort which ones go here and which ones go in Irrealis. I may have got some of them in the wrong place, so everyone should feel free to check and comment.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 00:04 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals 1. "Realis" needs an explanation: do these require that thesentences to which they are attached are true (or at least believed) or only that they are not fals(disbelieved)? Or something else?

2. The ranges often do not seem to cohere — the right member is not the opposit of the left (in any ordinary sense) nor the middle between. And it is hard to see how some of these — however interpreted — could be proper attitudes. So each needs a thorough explanation of just what is intended. Note: not "disinterested" but "uninterested" or, perhaps, "indifferent" (a different sense of "interest.")


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

arj Posted by arj on Sun 06 of Mar., 2005 20:16 GMT posts: 953 Suggestions for keywords (parenthesized words are for sense names):

.a'i gnnn. .i'a okay. .ie yes (agreement). .ienai no (disagreement). .ii eek. .i'o thankfully. .oi argh. .u'e wow. .u'u sorry. .ui whee. yay. hooray. hurrah. .uo finally.

Native speakers of English should probably be able to supply more.

-arj

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Eimi Posted by Eimi on Fri 17 of June, 2005 16:02 GMT posts: 18

United States

I think the new template can be improved. First of all, I think we need to standardize the keywords to a single part of speech. Right now, some are adjectives ("attentive", instead of "attentiveness" or "attention") and some are nouns ("happiness", instead of "happy"). I would suggest standardizing on nouns (they seem more common, and a bit more flexible), but either works. As for the template, I propose we bring the word itself into the defintion, so that we have

.a'u (UI1) Interest. This word is an attitudinal, that is, it directly expresses an emotion on the part of the speaker. It is part of a scale, from .a'u, which indicates a feeling of interest, through .a'u cu'i, indicating a feeling of disinterest, to .a'u nai, indicating repulsion. (cf. cinri, selcni)

The language might be cleaned up a little (in particular, I can't figure out if the comma after "scale" should be a semicolon, or perhaps omitted entirely), but replacing any language about "the base attitudinal" with the word itself should both shorten and clarify the defintion.

mi'e .adm.loprEst.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Eimi Posted by Eimi on Fri 29 of July, 2005 18:32 GMT posts: 18

United States

> Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals page.

A few minor issues on this page. (I'd considered just making the changes, but I'll submit them instead, since I have another suggestion.)

The definitions of {.a'e nai} and {ui nai} are listed as being for {.a'e} and {ui} respectively (the nai is missing).

{.oi nai} has an extra semicolon before it in the list.

As I understand it, this list is in alphabetical order. Would it make more sense to rearrange it a little so that, for instance, {ui} and {.u'i} appear together (possibly with {uinai} in between, I'm not quite decided on that)? Usually there's some relationship between {.v'v} and {.vv} when both exist, so putting them together seems to make more sense than separating them.

mi'e .adm.loprEst.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:01 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:02:58AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > I think the new template can be improved.

Well, yes. That's what the shepherds are for.  :-)

> First of all, I think we need to standardize the keywords to a > single part of speech. Right now, some are adjectives > ("attentive", instead of "attentiveness" or "attention") and some > are nouns ("happiness", > instead of "happy").

Yes, I noticed this.

> As for the template, I propose we bring the word itself into the > defintion, so that we have > > .a'u (UI1) > Interest. This word is an attitudinal, that is, it directly > expresses an emotion on the part of the speaker. It is part of > a scale, from .a'u, which indicates a feeling of interest, > through .a'u cu'i, indicating a feeling of disinterest, to > .a'u nai, indicating repulsion. (cf. cinri, selcni) > > The language might be cleaned up a little (in particular, I can't > figure out if the comma after "scale" should be a semicolon, or > perhaps omitted entirely),

The latter.

Also, it should use either "indicating" or "which indicates", but not both in different places. Anyone have a preference?

> but replacing any language about "the base attitudinal" with the > word itself should both shorten and clarify the defintion.

nod*

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:01 GMT > First of all, I think we need to standardize the keywords > to a single part of speech. Right now, some are adjectives > ("attentive", instead of "attentiveness" or "attention") and > some are nouns ("happiness", instead of "happy"). I would > suggest standardizing on nouns (they seem more common, > and a bit more flexible), but either works.

Good idea.

> As for the template, I propose we bring the word itself into > the defintion, so that we have > > .a'u (UI1) > Interest. This word is an attitudinal, that is, it directly > expresses an emotion on the part of the speaker. It is part > of a scale, from .a'u, which indicates a feeling of interest, > through .a'u cu'i, indicating a feeling of disinterest, to > .a'u nai, indicating repulsion. (cf. cinri, selcni)

I was thinking of doing something more dictionary-like:

.a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest. It modifies the immediately preceding word, or construct started by that word. .a'u cu'i Used to express disinterest. .a'u nai Used to express repulsion.

I'm not sure interest is an emotion, and most attitudinals are not used to express emotions, so I don't think "emotion" should be part of the template, and things like "this word is" are not really used in dictionaries.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

arj Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:02 GMT posts: 953 On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> I'm not sure interest is an emotion, and most attitudinals > are not used to express emotions, so I don't think "emotion" > should be part of the template, and things like "this word is" > are not really used in dictionaries.

I think this might vary according to what kind of attitudinal it is. For ".ui" and similar words, "emotion" should be okay. For discursives, it might be replaced by something like "attitude".

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Many familiar with Descartes' work are likely to remember him from philosophy courses as that French guy who was wrong a lot. --Daniel Harbour


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:02 GMT On 6/17/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> I think this might vary according to what kind of attitudinal it is. For > ".ui" and similar words, "emotion" should be okay.

At least {ui ro'i} is about emotions.

>For discursives, it > might be replaced by something like "attitude".

Probably the templates need to be more specialized:

"ro'i: emotional. This word is an attitudinal, that is, it directly expresses an emotion on the part of the speaker. This word is part of a scale; the base attitudinal word indicates that the speaker is feeling emotion category/modifier: emotional, and the base word followed by nai indicates that the speaker is feeling denying emotion .(cf. cinmo)"

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:02 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:32:22PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/17/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > > I think this might vary according to what kind of attitudinal it > > is. For ".ui" and similar words, "emotion" should be okay. > > At least {ui ro'i} is about emotions. > > >For discursives, it might be replaced by something like > >"attitude". > > Probably the templates need to be more specialized: > > "ro'i: emotional. This word is an attitudinal, that is, it > directly expresses an emotion on the part of the speaker. This > word is part of a scale; the base attitudinal word indicates that > the speaker is feeling emotion category/modifier: emotional, and > the base word followed by nai indicates that the speaker is > feeling denying emotion .(cf. cinmo)"

Yes, yes, they are not perfect; the shepherds still have to do

some* work. If I'm going to make perfect templates for every little distinction, I might as well just do all the work myself.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:02 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:44:49PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > I was thinking of doing something more dictionary-like: > > .a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest. It modifies > the immediately preceding word, or construct started by that > word. Words on the same scale: .a'u cu'i: Used to express > disinterest. .a'u nai: Used to express repulsion.

I really, really wish you had said so when I asked you on IRC.

I've modified it slightly (Added "Words on the same scale:", which I think could be phrased better, and a few colons).

Is everybody happy with this template? I do *NOT* want to have to do this again.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:02 GMT posts: 14214 My current proposal:

.a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest {INSERT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE}. The emotion is directed towards the referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct started by that word, even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is unspecified). This word is part of an emotional scale as follows: ".a'u" is used to express interest, ".a'u cu'i" is used to express disinterest, and ".a'u nai" is Used to express repulsion.

The {INSERT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE} bit is intended to account for the fact that "Used to express interest" is a pretty weak reading of .a'u; it's suitable for the scale bit at the end, and for keywords, but for a full definition I'd like to see something more like "Used to express the fact that the speaker is interested in or intrigued by something."

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:03 GMT On 6/21/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > My current proposal: > > .a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest {INSERT MORE > SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE}. The emotion is directed towards the > referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct started > by that word, even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which > case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is > unspecified). This word is part of an emotional scale as > follows: ".a'u" is used to express interest, ".a'u cu'i" is used > to express disinterest, and ".a'u nai" is Used to express > repulsion.

I suggest

s/emotion/attitude s/started/started or terminated

I would remove "even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is unspecified)" as too obvious to merit so much space.

Also remove "This word is part of an emotional scale as follows: ".a'u" is used to express interest", because it doesn't add anything.

> The {INSERT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE} bit is intended to account > for the fact that "Used to express interest" is a pretty weak > reading of .a'u; it's suitable for the scale bit at the end, and for > keywords, but for a full definition I'd like to see something more > like "Used to express the fact that the speaker is interested in or > intrigued by something."

I intend to add synonyms, not only to the basic word but also to the cu'i and nai constructs. But I don't like complicated phrases like "used to express the fact that the speaker is interested", when "used to express interest" already says the same thing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:04 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:11:51PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/21/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > My current proposal: > > > > .a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest {INSERT > > MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE}. The emotion is directed towards > > the referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct > > started by that word, even if the construct is otherwise > > empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed > > towards is unspecified). This word is part of an emotional > > scale as follows: ".a'u" is used to express interest, ".a'u > > cu'i" is used to express disinterest, and ".a'u nai" is Used > > to express repulsion. > > I suggest > > s/emotion/attitude > > s/started/started or terminated > > I would remove "even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which > case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is > unspecified)" as too obvious to merit so much space.

I disagree. It may be obvious to you, but the other reading ("cannot be presented without something to modify") is equally likely to the naive user.

> Also remove "This word is part of an emotional scale as follows: > ".a'u" is used to express interest", because it doesn't add > anything.

This is the template that will be used for all three words in the scale; making the code distinguish is too damned hard. You can remove the part for the specifc word in question in your own sections if you like.

However, I think it's a bad idea; I think each word in the scale should show the whole scale to avoid confusion. It's not of any great importance to me, though.

Other people's opinions?

> > The {INSERT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE} bit is intended to > > account for the fact that "Used to express interest" is a pretty > > weak reading of .a'u; it's suitable for the scale bit at the > > end, and for keywords, but for a full definition I'd like to see > > something more like "Used to express the fact that the speaker > > is interested in or intrigued by something." > > I intend to add synonyms, not only to the basic word but also to > the cu'i and nai constructs. But I don't like complicated phrases > like "used to express the fact that the speaker is interested", > when "used to express interest" already says the same thing.

I don't think it *does* say the same thing; to the naive user, the latter implies that it could be used to express *someone else's* interest.

I find that you are often (maybe even most of the time) too brief to be easily understood, myself, so when you say "We should use this shorter construct", I am instinctively opposed. Just FYI.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

arj Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:04 GMT posts: 953 On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:11:51PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >> On 6/21/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>> My current proposal: >>> >>> .a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest {INSERT >>> MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE}. The emotion is directed towards >>> the referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct >>> started by that word, even if the construct is otherwise >>> empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed >>> towards is unspecified). This word is part of an emotional >>> scale as follows: ".a'u" is used to express interest, ".a'u >>> cu'i" is used to express disinterest, and ".a'u nai" is Used >>> to express repulsion. >> >> I suggest >> >> s/emotion/attitude >> >> s/started/started or terminated >> >> I would remove "even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which >> case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is >> unspecified)" as too obvious to merit so much space. > > I disagree. It may be obvious to you, but the other reading > ("cannot be presented without something to modify") is equally > likely to the naive user.

I agree with Robin.

>> Also remove "This word is part of an emotional scale as follows: >> ".a'u" is used to express interest", because it doesn't add >> anything. > > This is the template that will be used for all three words in the > scale; making the code distinguish is too damned hard. You can > remove the part for the specifc word in question in your own > sections if you like. > > However, I think it's a bad idea; I think each word in the scale > should show the whole scale to avoid confusion. It's not of any > great importance to me, though. > > Other people's opinions?

I agree with Robin.

>>> The {INSERT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE} bit is intended to >>> account for the fact that "Used to express interest" is a pretty >>> weak reading of .a'u; it's suitable for the scale bit at the >>> end, and for keywords, but for a full definition I'd like to see >>> something more like "Used to express the fact that the speaker >>> is interested in or intrigued by something." >> >> I intend to add synonyms, not only to the basic word but also to >> the cu'i and nai constructs. But I don't like complicated phrases >> like "used to express the fact that the speaker is interested", >> when "used to express interest" already says the same thing. > > I don't think it *does* say the same thing; to the naive user, the > latter implies that it could be used to express *someone else's* > interest.

Which it could, if you suffix dai or pei.


-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ The problem is, witchcraft is not fantasy; it is a sinful reality in our world. --christiananswers.net


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:04 GMT On 6/22/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:11:51PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Also remove "This word is part of an emotional scale as follows: > > ".a'u" is used to express interest", because it doesn't add > > anything. > > This is the template that will be used for all three words in the > scale; making the code distinguish is too damned hard. You can > remove the part for the specifc word in question in your own > sections if you like.

I was working under the impression that only the word would be listed, and the compounds would be defined as part of the definition of the word.

If the compounds will be listed too, it seems a waste to include the three definitions three times, since they will appear right next to each other.

> > I intend to add synonyms, not only to the basic word but also to > > the cu'i and nai constructs. But I don't like complicated phrases > > like "used to express the fact that the speaker is interested", > > when "used to express interest" already says the same thing. > > I don't think it *does* say the same thing; to the naive user, the > latter implies that it could be used to express *someone else's* > interest.

What do you think of this definition of the English "whee", for example?


Would you say that to the naive user it could imply that it can be used to express someone else's pleasure or enthusiasm?

> I find that you are often (maybe even most of the time) too brief to > be easily understood, myself, so when you say "We should use this > shorter construct", I am instinctively opposed. Just FYI.

I'm in favour of clear definitions.

I find "used to expres X", where X is a noun, more clear in general than "used to express the fact that the speaker is Y", where Y is an adjective, because the former is more direct, it doesn't have to deal with facts. For example, am I allowed to express interest if it is not a fact that I am interested?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:04 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:19:57PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/22/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:11:51PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Also remove "This word is part of an emotional scale as > > > follows: ".a'u" is used to express interest", because it > > > doesn't add anything. > > > > This is the template that will be used for all three words in > > the scale; making the code distinguish is too damned hard. You > > can remove the part for the specifc word in question in your own > > sections if you like. > > I was working under the impression that only the word would be > listed, and the compounds would be defined as part of the > definition of the word.

We couldn't come to a good solution for the reverse lookup problem.

> If the compounds will be listed too, it seems a waste to include > the three definitions three times, since they will appear right > next to each other.

The fact that it's on a scale still seems useful, but the sub-definitions can be removed I suppose.

> > > I intend to add synonyms, not only to the basic word but also > > > to the cu'i and nai constructs. But I don't like complicated > > > phrases like "used to express the fact that the speaker is > > > interested", when "used to express interest" already says the > > > same thing. > > > > I don't think it *does* say the same thing; to the naive user, > > the latter implies that it could be used to express *someone > > else's* interest. > > What do you think of this definition of the English "whee", for > example? > > > > Would you say that to the naive user it could imply that it can be > used to express someone else's pleasure or enthusiasm?

Not only can it imply that, it's is, in fact, used that way.

Person: "I just got a new job!!"

Close Friend: "Wheeee!"

> I find "used to express X", where X is a noun, more clear in > general than "used to express the fact that the speaker is Y", > where Y is an adjective, because the former is more direct, it > doesn't have to deal with facts. For example, am I allowed to > express interest if it is not a fact that I am interested?

"Bob's really interested in those ideas."

la bab cu se cinri da

So yes, I'd say so. How about "used to express the speaker's X"?

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:04 GMT On 6/22/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:19:57PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > What do you think of this definition of the English "whee", for > > example? > > > > > > > > Would you say that to the naive user it could imply that it can be > > used to express someone else's pleasure or enthusiasm? > > Not only can it imply that, it's is, in fact, used that way. > > Person: "I just got a new job!!" > > Close Friend: "Wheeee!"

Close Friend is expressing pleasure that Person got a new job, maybe empathizing with them. That's just as in Lojban.

Another case where the expression is _as if_ it were someone else's is when a narrator is identifying with a characer in a story. For example: {.i sy catlu le kanla be la deivid gi'e .a'u cu'i peisku lo glico panra be} .


> > I find "used to express X", where X is a noun, more clear in > > general than "used to express the fact that the speaker is Y", > > where Y is an adjective, because the former is more direct, it > > doesn't have to deal with facts. For example, am I allowed to > > express interest if it is not a fact that I am interested? > > "Bob's really interested in those ideas." > > la bab cu se cinri da > > So yes, I'd say so.

I don't get how the example relates to what I said. I meant that I can feign interest, i.e. express interest when the fact of the matter is that I am not at all interested.

> How about "used to express the speaker's X"?

Unnecessary, because "used to express X" already means that, and confusing because it may seem to suggest that the attitudinals can't be used to express an attitude when the speaker is somehow identifying with someone else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:05 GMT posts: 2388

> On 6/22/05, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:19:57PM -0300, > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > What do you think of this definition of the > English "whee", for > > > example? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you say that to the naive user it > could imply that it can be > > > used to express someone else's pleasure or > enthusiasm? > > > > Not only can it imply that, it's is, in fact, > used that way. > > > > Person: "I just got a new job!!" > > > > Close Friend: "Wheeee!" > > Close Friend is expressing pleasure that Person > got a new job, > maybe empathizing with them. That's just as in > Lojban.

Gee, I would take this as a sarcastic comment ("What, another one — this makes five this year"). I suppose that it a case of clearly faked empathy — for a feeling even Person no longer feels.


Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:06 GMT posts: 14214 New proposal, in the interests of brevity:

Preface contains:

Attitudinals (UI, CAI, others?)

Attitudnals are words that are used to express the emotional state of the speaker directly (unless "dai" or "pei" are used; see their entries for details), similarily to interjections in other languages. The emotion is directed towards the referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct started or terminated by that word, even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is unspecified).

Template:

.a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest {INSERT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE}. This word comprises an emotional scale, along with ".a'u cu'i" and ".a'u nai". See also .a'u cu'i, .a'u nai, the preface.

There *would* be entries for .a'u cu'i and .a'u nai as well.

We need to have a large fight about cmavo compounds in the dictionary, but I think we can do that later; let's define pretty much everything, and we can consolidate if necessary. Expansion is harder than consolidation.

I, for the record, am pro-compound. xorxes is very anti-.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

arj Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:07 GMT posts: 953 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> New proposal, in the interests of brevity: > > Preface contains: >

> Attitudinals (UI, CAI, others?)

Nice idea, but:

> Attitudnals are words that are used to express the emotional > state of the speaker directly (unless "dai" or "pei" are used; > see their entries for details),

This likely only applies to "pure emotion" attitudinals. Discursives, so-called "irrealis" attitudinals, evidentials and whatnot fall outside of this definition.

I'm struggling with alternate formulations here. Maybe replace "emotional state" with "attitude, emotional state, or mental state"?

> similarily to interjections in > other languages. The emotion is directed towards the referent > of the immediately preceding word, or construct started or > terminated by that word, even if the construct is otherwise > empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed > towards is unspecified).

I agree.

> > Template: > > .a'u (UI1) Attitudinal. Used to express interest {INSERT MORE > SPECIFIC DETAILS HERE}. This word comprises an emotional scale, > along with ".a'u cu'i" and ".a'u nai". See also .a'u cu'i, .a'u > nai, the preface. > > There *would* be entries for .a'u cu'i and .a'u nai as well. > > We need to have a large fight about cmavo compounds in the > dictionary, but I think we can do that later; let's define pretty > much everything, and we can consolidate if necessary. Expansion is > harder than consolidation. > > I, for the record, am pro-compound. xorxes is very anti-.

The dictionary may have to contain "compounds" (actually collocations) for practical reasons. But I hope you agree with me that great care should be taken to avoid contradictions between entries.

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Keyboard: The Ultimate Input Device


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:07 GMT On 6/24/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Attitudnals are words that are used to express the emotional > > state of the speaker directly (unless "dai" or "pei" are used; > > see their entries for details), > > This likely only applies to "pure emotion" attitudinals. Discursives, > so-called "irrealis" attitudinals, evidentials and whatnot fall outside of > this definition. > > I'm struggling with alternate formulations here. Maybe replace "emotional > state" with "attitude, emotional state, or mental state"?

I agree, and probably it has to be expanded even more. I don't think {po'o}, for example, is used to express an attitude, emotional or mental state.

> > similarily to interjections in > > other languages. The emotion is directed towards the referent > > of the immediately preceding word, or construct started or > > terminated by that word, even if the construct is otherwise > > empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed > > towards is unspecified). > > I agree.

I'm not very happy with "directed towards". Even for the purely emotional quantifiers, the referent in question is more often the source rather than the target of the emotion.

I think something more vague, like "applies to" or similar would work more generally, or else make the different possibilities explicit: is directed to, inspired by, etc.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:07 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 10:11:43PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > >We need to have a large fight about cmavo compounds in the > >dictionary, but I think we can do that later; let's define pretty > >much everything, and we can consolidate if necessary. Expansion > >is harder than consolidation. > > > >I, for the record, am pro-compound. xorxes is very anti-. > > The dictionary may have to contain "compounds" (actually > collocations) for practical reasons. But I hope you agree with me > that great care should be taken to avoid contradictions between > entries.

Of course!!

Did I imply otherwise somehow?

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:08 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 06:18:26PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/24/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > Attitudnals are words that are used to express the > > > emotional state of the speaker directly (unless "dai" or > > > "pei" are used; see their entries for details), > > > > This likely only applies to "pure emotion" attitudinals. > > Discursives, so-called "irrealis" attitudinals, evidentials and > > whatnot fall outside of this definition. > > > > I'm struggling with alternate formulations here. Maybe replace > > "emotional state" with "attitude, emotional state, or mental > > state"? > > I agree, and probably it has to be expanded even more. I don't > think {po'o}, for example, is used to express an attitude, > emotional or mental state.

Revised suggestion:

Unless the individual word entries specify otherwise, realis attitudnals are words that are used to express the emotional state of the speaker directly, irrealis attitudnals are words that are used to express the emotional state of the speaker with respect to a state of the universe that may or may not (probably not) be the case, evidentials are words that are used to express how the speaker came to know something, and discursives are metalinguistic claims by the speaker about something said.

The effect of these words is associated with the referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct started or terminated by that word, even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is unspecified).

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:08 GMT posts: 14214 One more time, after having excised "realis" and "irrealis":

Unless the individual word entries specify otherwise, interjections are words that are used to express the emotional state of the speaker directly, mood indicators (that's "mood" in the grammatical sense, by the way) are words that are used to express the emotional state of the speaker with respect to a state of the universe that may or may not (probably not) be the case, evidentials are words that are used to express how the speaker came to know something, and discursives are metalinguistic claims by the speaker about something said.

The effect of these words is associated with the referent of the immediately preceding word, or construct started or terminated by that word, even if the construct is otherwise empty (in which case the exact thing the emotion is directed towards is unspecified).

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:08 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 03:44:13PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > state of the speaker directly, mood indicators (that's "mood" > in the grammatical sense, by the way) are words that are used

s/mood indicators/propositional attitude indicator/, and drop the parenthetical comment.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:32 GMT .u'u repentance - lack of regret - innocence

Shouldn't this be:

.u'u repentance - innocence - lack of regret

?

I can understand feeling repentant and feeling unrepentant as opposites, and feeling innocent (unaffected, and therefore neither repentant nor unrepentant) as being in the middle, but I'm not sure how the scale is supposed to work the other way. Should I reorder them?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:33 GMT .iu love - no love lost - hatred

What does "no love lost" mean here? From what I can find (for example ) this is an idiom that means: "If there is no love lost between two people they have a strong enmity towards or hate for the other and make no effort to conceal it."

Is that what {iu cu'i} is meant to mean? Almost the same thing as {iu nai}? Shouldn't it mean something like "indifference"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:34 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:12:01PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > .iu love - no love lost - hatred > > What does "no love lost" mean here? From what I can find (for > example > ) > this is an idiom that means: "If there is no love lost between two > people they have a strong enmity towards or hate for the other and > make no effort to conceal it." > > Is that what {iu cu'i} is meant to mean?

No, I don't think so.

> Almost the same thing as {iu nai}? Shouldn't it mean something > like "indifference"?

Yes. I think it was just a poor / confusing keyword choice.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:35 GMT This section is done for my part. Let the discussion begin!

(Voting coming soon.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 01:26 GMT > The definitions of {.a'e nai} and {ui nai} are listed as being for {.a'e} and {ui} respectively (the nai is missing). > > {.oi nai} has an extra semicolon before it in the list.

Fixed, thank you.

> As I understand it, this list is in alphabetical order. Would it make more sense to rearrange it a little so that, for instance, {ui} and {.u'i} appear together (possibly with {uinai} in between, I'm not quite decided on that)? Usually there's some relationship between {.v'v} and {.vv} when both exist, so putting them together seems to make more sense than separating them. > > mi'e .adm.loprEst.

Maybe. The alphabetical order makes them easier to find if you are looking for a particular one, but then the apostrophe could just as easily be left out for ordering purposes.

In any case, the format of the page is not really that important, since presumably once this is over everything will be collected and unified some place else and these pages will remain just as a historical record.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 29 of Dec., 2005 07:48 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 04:29:51PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > .u'u repentance - lack of regret - innocence > > Shouldn't this be: > > .u'u repentance - innocence - lack of regret > > ? > > I can understand feeling repentant and feeling unrepentant as > opposites, and feeling innocent (unaffected, and therefore neither > repentant nor unrepentant) as being in the middle, but I'm not > sure how the scale is supposed to work the other way. Should I > reorder them?

I see the scale as defined as:

"I repent of that wrongdoing"

"I had nothing to do with that"

"I did not do that wrong thing"

I'm not much sure what this means either; just saying.

-Robin


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Eimi Posted by Eimi on Wed 01 of Aug., 2007 21:10 GMT posts: 18

United States

My only problem is with the examples for {.o'i} and {.o'i nai}. At least, it's my understanding that {.o'i} is expressing that the speaker is being cautious/careful/etc., but the given example make it seem to be a warning to the listener.

.o'i le loldi cu se sakli Careful! The floor is slippery.

Not sure what I'd recommend (can't come up with a great example offhand), but something that's unambiguously about the speaker being cautious. Similarly for the {.o'i nai} example.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 02 of Aug., 2007 12:32 GMT On 8/1/07, Eimi wrote: > > My only problem is with the examples for {.o'i} and {.o'i nai}. At least, > it's my understanding that {.o'i} is expressing that the speaker is being > cautious/careful/etc., but the given example make it seem to be a > warning to the listener. > > .o'i le loldi cu se sakli > Careful! The floor is slippery. > > Not sure what I'd recommend (can't come up with a great example offhand), > but something that's unambiguously about the speaker being cautious. > Similarly for the {.o'i nai} example.

The way I understand it, o'i is used by the speaker to indicate that there is a need to be careful. It may be strictly self-directed with {o'i se'i}, strictly directed to someone else with {o'i se'i nai}, but by itself is just a general indication.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 02 of Aug., 2007 19:37 GMT On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On 8/1/07, Eimi wrote: > > > > My only problem is with the examples for {.o'i} and {.o'i nai}. At least, > > it's my understanding that {.o'i} is expressing that the speaker is being > > cautious/careful/etc., but the given example make it seem to be a > > warning to the listener. > > > > .o'i le loldi cu se sakli > > Careful! The floor is slippery. > > > > Not sure what I'd recommend (can't come up with a great example offhand), > > but something that's unambiguously about the speaker being cautious. > > Similarly for the {.o'i nai} example. > > The way I understand it, o'i is used by the speaker to indicate that > there is a need to be careful. It may be strictly self-directed with {o'i > se'i}, strictly directed to someone else with {o'i se'i nai}, but by itself > is just a general indication.

I see a huge difference between a *need* for caution and an attitude or exercise of caution. The definition you've provided ("Attitudinal. Used to express caution / carefulness / prudence / vigilance. (cf. seljde, capyrivbi, capfanta, srerivbi, srefanta, naldarsi)") seems to be very much the latter, but the example seems to be the former.


-- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

USER ERROR: replace user and press any key to continue.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 02 of Aug., 2007 22:33 GMT On 8/2/07, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > I see a huge difference between a *need* for caution and an attitude or > exercise of caution.

I agree about that. There may be a need for caution in a given situation while someone in that situation is rash/reckless. So I would say both {o'ï} and {o'inai} are used to indicate that a situation calls for prudence, and they differ in whether the speaker is paying heed to that call or not.

> The definition you've provided ("Attitudinal. Used to > express caution / carefulness / prudence / vigilance. (cf. seljde, capyrivbi, > capfanta, srerivbi, srefanta, naldarsi)") seems to be very much the latter, > but the example seems to be the former.

I welcome suggestions on how to improve the definition. I believe the examples show correctly how (in my understanding) it is meant to be used, so if the definition is not clear, that's what I would fix. There seem to be two levels to the attitude, one is the more basic evaluation of the situation as calling for caution, and the second level is the stance that the speaker takes in response to that basic feeling: either the "expected" one of being cautious in the case of {o'i}, or the contrarian one of being rash in the case of {o'i nai}.

If the speaker is not the agent in the situation, then the basic attitude is the more relevant one, as they can't really be cautious or rash if they are not acting.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 04 of Nov., 2007 22:00 GMT On 11/4/07, limlan wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals > > Author: limlan > > pe'i le ve skicu be zo .i'i .e le cartu noi dizlo cu milxe na'e drani > .i va'i .e'u re roi gasnu lo nu zo gunma basti zo gumna

ba'o dragau .i mi do ckire lo nu jundi

>.i .e'anai ba'e mi gasnu le se go'i mu'i lo nu ta ve skicu fo > bypyfyky .iosai .i ta'o le krasi ma'oste cu simsa fi lo ka > ce'u na'e drani lo ka skicu zo .i'i fo ce'u

je'u .u'i .i li'a lo nu zo gum cu rafsi zo gunma cu cfipu za'u pa da

ki'e mi'e xorxes

Posted by limlan on Sun 04 of Nov., 2007 08:16 GMT posts: 3 pe'i le ve skicu be zo .i'i .e le cartu noi dizlo cu milxe na'e drani .i va'i .e'u re roi gasnu lo nu zo gunma basti zo gumna .i .e'anai ba'e mi gasnu le se go'i mu'i lo nu ta ve skicu fo bypyfyky .iosai .i ta'o le krasi ma'oste cu simsa fi lo ka ce'u na'e drani lo ka skicu zo .i'i fo ce'u

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:03 GMT posts: 2388

> The page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals was > changed by xorxes at Tue 21 of Jun, 2005 [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/23:26%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20UTC 23:26 > UTC] >

> > ;.a'u (UI1): attitudinal: interest - > disinterest - repulsion (cf. cinri, selcni) > > .a'u nai ta panci simsa lo kalci > Yuck, that smells like shit!

Although usage is changing, can we just for a change maintain old standards and call the intermediate position "uninterest" rather than talking about whether it is advantageous to the speaker?

> ;ii (UI1): attitudinal: fear - security > (cf. terpa, snura)

Surely, as an attitudinal (however vague that term is), the opposite of fear is something like "confidence," "security" doesn't seem to be an attitude at all (even in a very loose sense).


> > ;.o'i (UI1): attitudinal: caution - > rashness (cf. capyrivbi, capfanta, srerivbi, > srefanta, naldarsi, seljde) The classic version is, of course, "cowardice -- bravery — rashness" but I don't suppose anyone ever *expresses* cowardice and caution is a good substitute. Is there a similar substitute for "bravery"?


> ;.u'o (UI1): attitudinal: courage - > timidity - cowardice (cf. virnu)

See above. I suspect the classic system has a different base (excess and lack of a quality) from whatever the base is here. (It would be nice to work that base out for consistency's sake and completeness) > > .u'o nai mi na nerkla ta > Oh no, I'm not going in there. > > ;.u'u (UI1): attitudinal: repentance - > lack of regret - innocence (cf. xenru, zugycni)

The path here looks toward impudence not innocence.

<<;ue (UI1): attitudinal: surprise - not really surprised - expectation (cf. spaji)>>

"expected" mot "expectation — which suggests something yet unknown, while this is respponse to a fait accompli.


ue ta lenku Oo, that's cold!

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:03 GMT

On 6/21/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > ;.a'u (UI1): attitudinal: interest - > > disinterest - repulsion (cf. cinri, selcni) > > Although usage is changing, can we just for a > change maintain old standards and call the > intermediate position "uninterest" rather than > talking about whether it is advantageous to the > speaker?

I think the point would be more valid for comparing the adjectives uninterested/disinterested than the nouns uninterest/disinterest. The noun "uninterest" seems to be hardly used at all. Google gives 100 times more hits for "disinterest" than for "uninterest", and from what I gather, usually with the "lack of interest" sense rather than the "lack of self-interest" sense, which would be more "disinterestedness". To my nonnative ears, "show/express uninterest" sounds much more strange than "show/express disinterest".

In any case, when I write the definition I might use all of them: "used to show disinterest/uninterest/lack of interest/apathy/ detachment/indifference/unconcern".

> > ;ii (UI1): attitudinal: fear - security > > (cf. terpa, snura) > > Surely, as an attitudinal (however vague that > term is), the opposite of fear is something like > "confidence," "security" doesn't seem to be an > attitude at all (even in a very loose sense).

Feeling safe, having a feeling of security? How about something like:

.ii nai le ctuca na ba bu'u tolcri mi'o Security The teacher won't find us here.

Perhaps "security" could be the middle one though: fear - security - confidence ?

> > ;.o'i (UI1): attitudinal: caution - > > rashness (cf. capyrivbi, capfanta, srerivbi, > > srefanta, naldarsi, seljde) > The classic version is, of course, "cowardice -- > bravery — rashness" but I don't suppose anyone > ever *expresses* cowardice and caution is a good > substitute. Is there a similar substitute for > "bravery"?

perhaps for this scale caution - carefreeness?nonchalance? - rashness

> > ;.u'o (UI1): attitudinal: courage - > > timidity - cowardice (cf. virnu) > > See above. I suspect the classic system has a > different base (excess and lack of a quality) > from whatever the base is here. (It would be > nice to work that base out for consistency's sake > and completeness)

"Classic" in what sense? In Lojban/Loglan terms, or something else? (Aristotelian?)

> > .u'o nai mi na nerkla ta > > Oh no, I'm not going in there. > > > > ;.u'u (UI1): attitudinal: repentance - > > lack of regret - innocence (cf. xenru, zugycni) > > The path here looks toward impudence not > innocence.

That "innocence" always seemed weird to me too.


> <<;ue (UI1): attitudinal: surprise - not > really surprised - expectation (cf. > spaji)>> > > "expected" mot "expectation — which suggests > something yet unknown, while this is respponse to > a fait accompli.

It should be a noun though. "Expectedness"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:03 GMT posts: 2388

> On 6/21/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > ;.a'u (UI1): attitudinal: interest - > > > disinterest - repulsion (cf. cinri, > selcni) > > > > Although usage is changing, can we just for a > > change maintain old standards and call the > > intermediate position "uninterest" rather > than > > talking about whether it is advantageous to > the > > speaker? > > I think the point would be more valid for > comparing the adjectives > uninterested/disinterested than the nouns > uninterest/disinterest. > The noun "uninterest" seems to be hardly used > at all. Google > gives 100 times more hits for "disinterest" > than for "uninterest", > and from what I gather, usually with the "lack > of interest" sense > rather than the "lack of self-interest" sense, > which would be > more "disinterestedness". To my nonnative ears, > "show/express > uninterest" sounds much more strange than > "show/express > disinterest".

Yeah; I'm not too fond of "uninterest" myself, but I was looking for a single word for "lack of interest"

> In any case, when I write the definition I > might use all of them: > "used to show disinterest/uninterest/lack of > interest/apathy/ > detachment/indifference/unconcern".

Yes, that does it nicely.

> > > ;ii (UI1): attitudinal: fear - > security > > > (cf. terpa, snura) > > > > Surely, as an attitudinal (however vague that > > term is), the opposite of fear is something > like > > "confidence," "security" doesn't seem to be > an > > attitude at all (even in a very loose sense). > > Feeling safe, having a feeling of security? > How about something like: > > .ii nai le ctuca na ba bu'u tolcri mi'o > Security The teacher won't find us here. > > Perhaps "security" could be the middle one > though: > fear - security - confidence ?

I'm not quite sure how we would divide these up in any thoroughgoing system. But then we don't have a system here at all, let alone a thoroughgoing one, so this has some real possibilities.

> > > ;.o'i (UI1): attitudinal: caution - > > > rashness (cf. capyrivbi, capfanta, > srerivbi, > > > srefanta, naldarsi, seljde) > > The classic version is, of course, "cowardice > -- > > bravery — rashness" but I don't suppose > anyone > > ever *expresses* cowardice and caution is a > good > > substitute. Is there a similar substitute > for > > "bravery"? > > perhaps for this scale > caution - carefreeness?nonchalance? - rashness

Nice. a different sclae than the virtues and vices one but very servicable.

> > > ;.u'o (UI1): attitudinal: courage - > > > timidity - cowardice (cf. virnu) > > > > See above. I suspect the classic system has > a > > different base (excess and lack of a quality) > > from whatever the base is here. (It would be > > nice to work that base out for consistency's > sake > > and completeness) > > "Classic" in what sense? In Lojban/Loglan > terms, or > something else? (Aristotelian?)

Aristotelian exactly. Hence western civilization well into at least the 19th century.

> > > .u'o nai mi na nerkla ta > > > Oh no, I'm not going in there. > > > > > > ;.u'u (UI1): attitudinal: repentance - > > > lack of regret - innocence (cf. xenru, > zugycni) > > > > The path here looks toward impudence not > > innocence. > > That "innocence" always seemed weird to me too.

I don't know quite where innocence fits into any of this — the contrast is presumably with guilt and a neutral non-involvement position, but are any of these attitudes or the like?

> > > <<;ue (UI1): attitudinal: surprise - not > > really surprised - expectation (cf. > > spaji)>> > > > > "expected" mot "expectation — which suggests > > something yet unknown, while this is > respponse to > > a fait accompli. > > It should be a noun though. "Expectedness"? Weoll, the neutral point is adjectival too. I'm sure there is a better noun (if we must have one -- I actually think it makes more sense for all of them to be adjectives).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:05 GMT

On 6/22/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > > > ;.u'o (UI1): attitudinal: courage - > > > > timidity - cowardice (cf. virnu) > > > > > > See above. I suspect the classic system has > > a > > > different base (excess and lack of a quality) > > > from whatever the base is here. (It would be > > > nice to work that base out for consistency's > > sake > > > and completeness) > > > > "Classic" in what sense? In Lojban/Loglan > > terms, or > > something else? (Aristotelian?) > > Aristotelian exactly. Hence western civilization > well into at least the 19th century.

Aristotle's virtues and vices don't seem all that useful to deal with attitudinals. Those virtues and vices seem to be expressed through actions more than with words. Besides, it would be weird to have the basic element indicate excess, and then add {cu'i} for the mean and {nai} for the lack.

> > > <<;ue (UI1): attitudinal: surprise - not > > > really surprised - expectation (cf. > > > spaji)>> > > > > > > "expected" mot "expectation — which suggests > > > something yet unknown, while this is > > respponse to > > > a fait accompli. > > > > It should be a noun though. "Expectedness"? > Weoll, the neutral point is adjectival too. I'm > sure there is a better noun (if we must have one > — I actually think it makes more sense for all > of them to be adjectives).

The ma'oste is rather haphazard about this, sometimes it uses adjectives and sometimes nouns. I think it makes more sense to unify everything into nouns. Something along the lines of these definitions for English interjections:

oh interj. 1. Used to express strong emotion, such as surprise, fear, anger, or pain. 2. Used in direct address: Oh, sir! You forgot your keys. 3. Used to indicate understanding or acknowledgment of a statement.

ah interj. Used to express various emotions, such as satisfaction, surprise, delight, dislike, or pain.

eh interj. 1. Used in asking a question or in seeking repetition or confirmation of a statement. 2. (Chiefly Canadian.) Used to ascertain or reinforce a listener's interest or agreement.

yay interj. Used as an exclamation of pleasure, approval, elation, or victory.

The Lojban attitudinals tend to be more focused, but other than that, many work just like English interjections.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:05 GMT posts: 2388

> On 6/22/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > > ;.u'o (UI1): attitudinal: courage > - > > > > > timidity - cowardice (cf. virnu) > > > > > > > > See above. I suspect the classic system > has > > > a > > > > different base (excess and lack of a > quality) > > > > from whatever the base is here. (It > would be > > > > nice to work that base out for > consistency's > > > sake > > > > and completeness) > > > > > > "Classic" in what sense? In Lojban/Loglan > > > terms, or > > > something else? (Aristotelian?) > > > > Aristotelian exactly. Hence western > civilization > > well into at least the 19th century. > > Aristotle's virtues and vices don't seem all > that useful > to deal with attitudinals.

Part of the point here is that the words we are using are probably not very good ones; they seem to belong to something other than attitudes or emotions or whatever: courage and cowardice virtue and vice, behaviors, as you say, not attitudes. But then the terminology is so screwed up (in english, not just — for once -- in Lojban) that it is unclear what most of these things are meant to mean. As noted, we don't

  • express* either of these (and many others)

though we do display them. The question is what is like them in some relevant way (what?) that we do express.

>Those virtues and > vices seem > to be expressed through actions more than with > words. > Besides, it would be weird to have the basic > element > indicate excess, and then add {cu'i} for the > mean and > {nai} for the lack.

But this is just the pattern in most of these: one extreme the neutral position and the opposite extreme. It is hard to see how else to set up a scale.

> > > > <<;ue (UI1): attitudinal: surprise - > not > > > > really surprised - expectation (cf. > > > > spaji)>> > > > > > > > > "expected" mot "expectation — which > suggests > > > > something yet unknown, while this is > > > respponse to > > > > a fait accompli. > > > > > > It should be a noun though. "Expectedness"? > > Weoll, the neutral point is adjectival too. > I'm > > sure there is a better noun (if we must have > one > > — I actually think it makes more sense for > all > > of them to be adjectives). > > The ma'oste is rather haphazard about this, > sometimes > it uses adjectives and sometimes nouns. I think > it makes > more sense to unify everything into nouns. > Something along > the lines of these definitions for English > interjections: > > oh > interj. > 1. Used to express strong emotion, such as > surprise, fear, > anger, or pain. > 2. Used in direct address: Oh, sir! You forgot > your keys. > 3. Used to indicate understanding or > acknowledgment of a > statement. > > ah > interj. > Used to express various emotions, such as > satisfaction, > surprise, delight, dislike, or pain. > > eh > interj. > 1. Used in asking a question or in seeking > repetition or > confirmation of a statement. > 2. (Chiefly Canadian.) Used to ascertain or > reinforce a > listener's interest or agreement. > > yay > interj. > Used as an exclamation of pleasure, approval, > elation, or > victory. > > The Lojban attitudinals tend to be more > focused, but > other than that, many work just like English > interjections.

The problem seems to be (aside from the question of what is expressed here) that there are often not good words for the "emotion" involved, though there are usually decent adjectives for someone in the throws of that emotion — or so it seems to me on a brief survey.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:05 GMT

On 6/23/05, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Besides, it would be weird to have the basic > > element > > indicate excess, and then add {cu'i} for the > > mean and > > {nai} for the lack. > > But this is just the pattern in most of these: > one extreme the neutral position and the opposite > extreme. It is hard to see how else to set up a > scale.

If we were trying to replicate Aristotle's virtues and vices, the natural way to set them up would be to have the basic word for the virtue and then two affixes "excess of" and "deficit of" for the vices.

The attitudinals are mostly not about "excess of" anything. The scales are usually X, opposite of X and in the middle lack of both X and opposite of X.

> The problem seems to be (aside from the question > of what is expressed here) that there are often > not good words for the "emotion" involved, though > there are usually decent adjectives for someone > in the throws of that emotion — or so it seems > to me on a brief survey.

My survey of the base VV forms gives one adjective (a'a: attentive) and 38 nouns. The adjective is the first one, so your survey must have been brief indeed. :-)

(There are a few more adjectives among the -cu'i and -nai forms, but hardly enough to make up the difference.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:06 GMT posts: 2388

> On 6/23/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > Besides, it would be weird to have the > basic > > > element > > > indicate excess, and then add {cu'i} for > the > > > mean and > > > {nai} for the lack. > > > > But this is just the pattern in most of > these: > > one extreme the neutral position and the > opposite > > extreme. It is hard to see how else to set up > a > > scale. > > If we were trying to replicate Aristotle's > virtues and vices, > the natural way to set them up would be to have > the basic > word for the virtue and then two affixes > "excess of" and > "deficit of" for the vices.

It is not clear what the excess and deficit are of in many cases: It may be that cowardice is too little courage (though that seems odd in some ways) but impetuosity is not an excess of courage. Courage is the mean on some scale and the other ends are, by definition almost, the extremes. But it is clar that the virtue and vice stuff has nothing — aside from overlap of names — to do with whatever is going on here (easier to see than to say, apparently).


> The attitudinals are mostly not about "excess > of" anything. > The scales are usually X, opposite of X and in > the middle > lack of both X and opposite of X. > > > The problem seems to be (aside from the > question > > of what is expressed here) that there are > often > > not good words for the "emotion" involved, > though > > there are usually decent adjectives for > someone > > in the throws of that emotion — or so it > seems > > to me on a brief survey. > > My survey of the base VV forms gives one > adjective (a'a: attentive) > and 38 nouns. The adjective is the first one, > so your survey must > have been brief indeed. :-)

I meant "in English" and across the board, not what happened to be picked for Lojban — many of which have been seen to be poor choices anyhow. And that was, after all, the point of the remark.

> > (There are a few more adjectives among the > -cu'i and -nai forms, > but hardly enough to make up the difference.) >

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:06 GMT

On 6/23/05, John E Clifford wrote: > It is not clear what the excess and deficit are > of in many cases: It may be that cowardice is too > little courage (though that seems odd in some > ways) but impetuosity is not an excess of > courage.

According to this table, rashness would be an excess of confidence, cowardice a deficiency, and courage the just mean:

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:06 GMT posts: 2388

> On 6/23/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > It is not clear what the excess and deficit > are > > of in many cases: It may be that cowardice is > too > > little courage (though that seems odd in some > > ways) but impetuosity is not an excess of > > courage. > > According to this table, rashness would be an > excess > of confidence, cowardice a deficiency, and > courage the > just mean: >

> This is at least an expressible "emotion" and makes for a reasonably clear set of markers, but, because the positive is in the middle, I don't suppose it would be used in Lojban. Indeed, assuming that is what is meant, it seems to have been split into two separate ones, neither of which is at all clear (nor expressible, for that matter).