Talk:BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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

Wiki page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals changed by xorxes

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