WikiDiscuss

These are clearer than the realis: the attached sentence is believed not to be true and its truth is somehow the object of an attitude.

Oughtn't {ei} be for laying an ob on someone — whether authoritatively or not — to match the other forms in the neighborhood?

pc:
> Oughtn't {ei} be for laying an ob on someone — whether authoritatively or
> not — to match the other forms in the neighborhood?

I think it reduces to that in the case where the second person is the
agent: {ei do klama}, "it ought to be the case that you go", i.e.
"you ought to go", but I think {ei} is more general, as it works
even for non-agentive situations. For example:

eipei zo ei tutci lo nu te bilga da de
Oughtn't {ei} be for laying an ob on someone?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Nice example! I think that is most of what I meant by nonauthoritative laying on, now that I look at it.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Oughtn't {ei} be for laying an ob on someone — whether authoritatively or
> not — to match the other forms in the neighborhood?

I think it reduces to that in the case where the second person is the
agent: {ei do klama}, "it ought to be the case that you go", i.e.
"you ought to go", but I think {ei} is more general, as it works
even for non-agentive situations. For example:

eipei zo ei tutci lo nu te bilga da de
Oughtn't {ei} be for laying an ob on someone?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Re: BPFK Section: Irrealis Attitudinals
These are clearer than the realis: the attached sentence is believed not to be true and its truth is somehow the object of an attitude.

From the section:

> .ai nai (UI*1) Attitudinal. Used to express unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)

> ai nai changed from rejection / refusal (which is i'a nai) to unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness.

This is at odds with both the CLL, the cmavo list, and usage. You should change it back to rejection/refusal.

-arj

> > .ai nai (UI*1) Attitudinal. Used to express unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
>
> > ai nai changed from rejection / refusal (which is i'a nai) to unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness.
>
> This is at odds with both the CLL, the cmavo list, and usage. You should change it back to rejection/refusal.
>
> -arj

What about compositionality?

rejection/refusal is the opposite of acceptance/accession/consent, not the
opposite of intent/purpose/design.

Do you have examples of usage where {ainai} is used for rejection/refusal?

>From what I can see, it has been used to show lack of intent:
"ainai X" = "I have no intention of doing X" which really means "I have
the intention of not doing X." In some cases, this could constitute refusal,
if it comes after a request or suggestion or command that I do X, but in
such cases {vi'o nai} would be more appropriate.

Do you think this is an inappropriate use of {ainai}:

.ai nai do pu se xrani
I didn't mean for you to get hurt.

If so, what do you take the Lojban to mean, and how would you express
the English in Lojban?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> > > .ai nai (UI*1) Attitudinal. Used to express
> unintentionality / accidentality /
> unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
> >
> > > ai nai changed from rejection / refusal
> (which is i'a nai) to unintentionality /
> accidentality / unplannedness.
> >
> > This is at odds with both the CLL, the cmavo
> list, and usage. You should change it back to
> rejection/refusal.
> >
> > -arj
>
> What about compositionality?

Vastly overrated — when it makes for useless
definitions. In this case, however, once we get
past (I am not sure I have) the idea that one can

• express* intentionality or its absence, this

would seem to be a natural (and rejection, which
clearly can be expressed, is covered).

> rejection/refusal is the opposite of
> acceptance/accession/consent, not the
> opposite of intent/purpose/design.
>
> Do you have examples of usage where {ainai} is
> used for rejection/refusal?
>
> >From what I can see, it has been used to show
> lack of intent:
> "ainai X" = "I have no intention of doing X"
> which really means "I have
> the intention of not doing X." In some cases,
> this could constitute refusal,
> if it comes after a request or suggestion or
> command that I do X, but in
> such cases {vi'o nai} would be more
> appropriate.
>
> Do you think this is an inappropriate use of
> {ainai}:
>
> .ai nai do pu se xrani
> I didn't mean for you to get hurt.

Probably, since the English *states* my
non-intention, not *express* it (and, again, can
it really be expressed?)
> If so, what do you take the Lojban to mean, and
> how would you express
> the English in Lojban?

Approximately "Oops, did that hurt you?" though
this contains a number of other things as well --
acceptance of some responsibility and an apology,
at least — but very weakly.

{mi na purpla lo nu do se xrani}, though I am not
wild about {purpla} and miss again the "x does y
intending to do z" of Philosophy (several
philosophically interesting terms got cut out
early in the vocabulary building process and
reasonable replacements, though promised, have
never actually appeared).

> >
> > Do you think this is an inappropriate use of
> > {ainai}:
> >
> > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
>
> Probably, since the English *states* my
> non-intention, not *express* it (and, again,
> can
> it really be expressed?)
> > If so, what do you take the Lojban to mean,
> and
> > how would you express
> > the English in Lojban?
>
> Approximately "Oops, did that hurt you?" though
> this contains a number of other things as well
> --
> acceptance of some responsibility and an
> apology,
> at least — but very weakly.
>
> {mi na purpla lo nu do se xrani}, though I am
> not
> wild about {purpla} and miss again the "x does
> y
> intending to do z" of Philosophy (several
> philosophically interesting terms got cut out
> early in the vocabulary building process and
> reasonable replacements, though promised, have
> never actually appeared).
{mi se snuti lo nu do se xrani} is not much
better and works not at all for more detailed work.

On 8/7/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Do you think this is an inappropriate use of
> > {ainai}:
> >
> > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
>
> Probably, since the English *states* my
> non-intention, not *express* it

The English probably both states and expresses it.
It is difficult to disentangle statements about oneself
from expressions, and in English we often express
something by stating something about ourselves.
Saying "I'm sorry", for example is a common
way of expressing that one is sorry, even if it also
makes the statement that one is sorry. Stating that
something is the case is not incompatible with
expressing something in the same act.

> (and, again, can
> it really be expressed?)

Why not? As you show below even more clearly, saying
"oops" is often a way to express unintentionality, this time
without making the corresponding statement.

> Approximately "Oops, did that hurt you?"

Or "Oops, you got hurt!".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

>>> .ai nai (UI*1) Attitudinal. Used to express unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
>>
>>> ai nai changed from rejection / refusal (which is i'a nai) to unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness.
>>
>> This is at odds with both the CLL, the cmavo list, and usage. You should change it back to rejection/refusal.
>>
>> -arj
>
> What about compositionality?
>
> rejection/refusal is the opposite of acceptance/accession/consent, not the
> opposite of intent/purpose/design.

Rejection/refusal may not be the best keywords, but it's the best I can
think of. What would you call the intention of not doing something?

> Do you have examples of usage where {ainai} is used for rejection/refusal?

Yes, from the IRC corpus:

Examples that support my interpretation:
17:01 <fracture> .ainai mi na gunka ca le pavdei
17:01 <fracture> .ui
17:01 <fracture> sa
17:01 <fracture> .ainai mi gunka ca le pavdei

21 Jun 2004 18:23:28 <fracture> .i .ainai curmi lonu citka lo titnanba .i slari nanba po'o

25 Dec 2004 11:33:28 <Broca> ainai mi bebna

06 May 2005 17:39:13 <Broca> ainai mi jmina lo valsi poi mi finti

Examples that support your definition:
None found.

Uncertain examples:
06:46 <bancus> la kolas: .i .ainai.o'o mi na bazi cliva .i do pu
xlagalfi le sidbo pe le sodva .i do pu zbasu le dukse xlali selckasu le
sakta selpinxe poi ro le prenu cu zmanei ke'a .i xu do djuno le du'u lo
bloti xukmrkafin cu vindu

22 May 2004 14:04:21 <Broca> iaru'e do pu xusra le du'u zo do'e tolplixau 22 May 2004 14:04:34 <Broca> i e'o ko skicu le mukti

22 May 2004 14:05:54 <rlpowell> .ainai na go'i
22 May 2004 14:06:29 <rlpowell> mi xusra le du'u lo jbopre cu jai to'e dukse fai le nu pilno zo do'e

>> From what I can see, it has been used to show lack of intent:
> "ainai X" = "I have no intention of doing X" which really means "I have
> the intention of not doing X."

Totally agreed. But that is not a possible reading of your current
proposal, as far as I can tell.

> In some cases, this could constitute refusal,
> if it comes after a request or suggestion or command that I do X, but in
> such cases {vi'o nai} would be more appropriate.
>
> Do you think this is an inappropriate use of {ainai}:
>
> .ai nai do pu se xrani
> I didn't mean for you to get hurt.

Yes, I think it's about as strange as using "ei" in a past tense sentence.
If you removed the "pu" I would translate it as "I'll see to it that you
don't get hurt."

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
<Rad> NEI! IKKE GI MEG LINK! TENK FOR MEG!

On 8/7/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>
> Rejection/refusal may not be the best keywords, but it's the best I can
> think of. What would you call the intention of not doing something?

Intention.

> > Do you have examples of usage where {ainai} is used for rejection/refusal?
>
> Yes, from the IRC corpus:
>
> Examples that support my interpretation:
> 17:01 <fracture> .ainai mi na gunka ca le pavdei
> 17:01 <fracture> .ui
> 17:01 <fracture> sa
> 17:01 <fracture> .ainai mi gunka ca le pavdei

That's a refusal/rejection only if in response to someone suggesting or
asking or ordering that he work today, but then vi'onai would be better.
Without more context, I would say it was meant as just
{ai mi na gunka ca le pavdei}.

> 21 Jun 2004 18:23:28 <fracture> .i .ainai curmi lonu citka lo titnanba .i slari nanba po'o

Same here.

> 25 Dec 2004 11:33:28 <Broca> ainai mi bebna

Was that meant as "I reject the implication that I'm silly" or something
like that? If so, then this should have been {ienai}. It could also mean
"I'm not trying to be silly", but I suppose you didn't mean it like that,
or it would support my definition.

> 06 May 2005 17:39:13 <Broca> ainai mi jmina lo valsi poi mi finti

>
> Examples that support your definition:
> None found.

OK, but no examples clearly support rejection/refusal either.

> Uncertain examples:
> 06:46 <bancus> la kolas: .i .ainai.o'o mi na bazi cliva .i do pu
> xlagalfi le sidbo pe le sodva .i do pu zbasu le dukse xlali selckasu le
> sakta selpinxe poi ro le prenu cu zmanei ke'a .i xu do djuno le du'u lo
> bloti xukmrkafin cu vindu
>
> 22 May 2004 14:04:21 <Broca> iaru'e do pu xusra le du'u zo do'e tolplixau
> 22 May 2004 14:04:34 <Broca> i e'o ko skicu le mukti
> 22 May 2004 14:05:54 <rlpowell> .ainai na go'i
> 22 May 2004 14:06:29 <rlpowell> mi xusra le du'u lo jbopre cu jai to'e dukse fai le nu pilno zo do'e

Some confusion with the double negatives, probably.

> >> From what I can see, it has been used to show lack of intent:
> > "ainai X" = "I have no intention of doing X" which really means "I have
> > the intention of not doing X."
>
> Totally agreed. But that is not a possible reading of your current
> proposal, as far as I can tell.

True, the wording applies better as being about things in the past than
about something that may or may not happen in the future. My point was
that people have not been using {ainai} for rejection/refusal, at least not
consistently. Most often they have used it as {ai nai broda} = {ai na broda}.

> > In some cases, this could constitute refusal,
> > if it comes after a request or suggestion or command that I do X, but in
> > such cases {vi'o nai} would be more appropriate.
> >
> > Do you think this is an inappropriate use of {ainai}:
> >
> > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
>
> Yes, I think it's about as strange as using "ei" in a past tense sentence.

I don't see any problem in using {ei} with a past tense. {ei} is used to
express how the speaker feels things ought to be now, in the future or
have been in the past:

ei do pu dunda le cukta la djan
You ought to have given the book to John.

ei le cmavo smuni pu xagmau se skicu
cmavo meanings ougth to have been better described.

> If you removed the "pu" I would translate it as "I'll see to it that you
> don't get hurt."

Which is not about rejection/refusal, it's about intention:

ai do na ba se xrani

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/7/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>>
>> Rejection/refusal may not be the best keywords, but it's the best I can
>> think of. What would you call the intention of not doing something?
>
> Intention.

Well, yes, but we need to have something a bit more specific, to separate
it from {ai}.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
<Nixon> Etter revolusjonen har jeg ordnet meg slik at jeg fr meg statue.
<Nixon> Har avtalt dette med nkkelpersoner p venstresiden.
<Nixon> Som takk for min innsats.
<Nixon> Det blir en 150m hy statue i havnebassenget.
<Kre> skal du ha restaurant i hodet?

On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > On 8/7/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Rejection/refusal may not be the best keywords, but it's the best I can
> >> think of. What would you call the intention of not doing something?
> >
> > Intention.
>
> Well, yes, but we need to have something a bit more specific, to separate
> it from {ai}.

What I propose is to use {ai} to express either the intention
of doing or not doing something: {ai mi klama} if I intend to
go and {ai mi na klama} if I intend to not go, and leave
{ai nai mi klama} to express that I have no intentions
about the matter. {ai cu'i mi klama} is something in between:
I have not yet made up my mind whether or not I intend to go.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/7/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Do you think this is an inappropriate use
> of
> > > {ainai}:
> > >
> > > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > > I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
> >
> > Probably, since the English *states* my
> > non-intention, not *express* it
>
> The English probably both states and expresses
> it.
> It is difficult to disentangle statements about
> oneself
> from expressions, and in English we often
> express
> something by stating something about ourselves.
> Saying "I'm sorry", for example is a common
> way of expressing that one is sorry, even if it
> also
> makes the statement that one is sorry. Stating
> that
> something is the case is not incompatible with
> expressing something in the same act.
>
> > (and, again, can
> > it really be expressed?)

The point is that {ainai} and its kin NEVER
state, they only express. That is, an {ainai}
expression is not false if I really did intend
the involved event; it is merely misleading or
some other negative judgment on it. The "state
and express" rule seems only to work with things
that can/do already state: "Oy, he's coming" is
false only if he is not coming, not if he is but
I am happy about it. It may be that "I did not
intend" can be expressed in English, if at all,
only using stating language, but it seems to me
at least as likely that it cannot be exprtessed
at all and that the "expressive" aspects of usage
are implications (if you claim it was not
intentional then you are aware that it was
damaging and are trying to reduce responsibility
while making a weak apology, and so on). It is
hard to figure out — in language appropriate for
emotions or attitudes — what is being expressed
here.

>
> Why not? As you show below even more clearly,
> saying
> "oops" is often a way to express
> unintentionality, this time
> without making the corresponding statement.
>
> > Approximately "Oops, did that hurt you?"
>
> Or "Oops, you got hurt!".
The problem with "oops!" is that it says so much
more than unintentionality and extends to
situations where intentionality does not even
seem to apply (or, at least, would not normally
be thought to: obvious accidents, for example).

---

> On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > > On 8/7/05, Arnt Richard Johansen
> <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Rejection/refusal may not be the best
> keywords, but it's the best I can
> > >> think of. What would you call the
> intention of not doing something?
> > >
> > > Intention.
> >
> > Well, yes, but we need to have something a
> bit more specific, to separate
> > it from {ai}.
>
> What I propose is to use {ai} to express either
> the intention
> of doing or not doing something: {ai mi klama}
> if I intend to
> go and {ai mi na klama} if I intend to not go,
> and leave
> {ai nai mi klama} to express that I have no
> intentions
> about the matter. {ai cu'i mi klama} is
> something in between:
> I have not yet made up my mind whether or not I
> intend to go.
>
It is nice to get {ainai} and {ai na} separated,
since {xnai} and {xna} seems often to be equated
in these attitudinals (and even more so in BAI).
The {ainai} {aicu'i} distinction seems to me to
be less clear and less useful. If I have not yet
formulated an intention about something then I
have no intention about it. The most that can be
said as an intermeidate position is that for some
things about which I have so far no intention, I
intend to formulate an intention — and for
others I don't. But using either {nai} or {cu'i}
for these second order intentions does not seem
to me to have any justification other than a
remote preactical one — and it violates
compositionality, of course. One would normally
assume (except for this use of {nai}) that the
things like {cu'i} had to do with the strength of
one's resolve — maybe something along the likes
of thevarious old "shall"-"will" distinctions
(which no one can now — nor ever, so far as I
can tell — remember consistently).

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> The point is that {ainai} and its kin NEVER
> state, they only express.

All UIs are used to express or indicate something, never
to state. Only bridi can be used to state.
bridi can also be used for other things than stating.
UIs can accompany a bridi. This bridi accompanied by a
UI may but need not be used to state.

> > > Approximately "Oops, did that hurt you?"
> >
> > Or "Oops, you got hurt!".
> The problem with "oops!" is that it says so much
> more than unintentionality and extends to
> situations where intentionality does not even
> seem to apply (or, at least, would not normally
> be thought to: obvious accidents, for example).

"Oops" is indeed much less well defined than Lojban
attitudinals, which generally have much more restricted
senses. "Oops" is certainly not a perfect match for {ainai}
always and everywhere. Hardly any English interjection
(probably none) is a perfect match for a Lojban UI.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> It is nice to get {ainai} and {ai na} separated,
> since {xnai} and {xna} seems often to be equated
> in these attitudinals

{e'u nai} is the only one I can find where that seems to be
the case. Which one(s) did you have in mind?

>(and even more so in BAI).

With BAIs, it is never the case that {bai nai ko'a} is
equated with {bai ko'a naku}. Which case did you
have in mind?

> The {ainai} {aicu'i} distinction seems to me to
> be less clear and less useful. If I have not yet
> formulated an intention about something then I
> have no intention about it. The most that can be
> said as an intermeidate position is that for some
> things about which I have so far no intention, I
> intend to formulate an intention — and for
> others I don't.

Not everybody is as decisive as you though. I often
find myself wavering in a state where I have an
intention and at the same time I don't.

> But using either {nai} or {cu'i}
> for these second order intentions does not seem
> to me to have any justification other than a
> remote preactical one — and it violates
> compositionality, of course. One would normally
> assume (except for this use of {nai}) that the
> things like {cu'i} had to do with the strength of
> one's resolve — maybe something along the likes
> of thevarious old "shall"-"will" distinctions
> (which no one can now — nor ever, so far as I
> can tell — remember consistently).

But strength is handled by {ru'e} (weak), {sai} (strong}
and {cai} (stronger).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > The point is that {ainai} and its kin NEVER
> > state, they only express.
>
> All UIs are used to express or indicate
> something, never
> to state. Only bridi can be used to state.
> bridi can also be used for other things than
> stating.
> UIs can accompany a bridi. This bridi
> accompanied by a
> UI may but need not be used to state.

I just wanted to reiterate this point, which has
been lost from time to time in the past. UI do
have the power — in some cases — to interfere
with, not merely accompany, the assertions of
bridi. And the irrealis cases are particularly
so inclined (though others are as well).
Assuming intentions can be expressed, this would
be such a case.

> > > > Approximately "Oops, did that hurt you?"
> > >
> > > Or "Oops, you got hurt!".
> > The problem with "oops!" is that it says so
> much
> > more than unintentionality and extends to
> > situations where intentionality does not even
> > seem to apply (or, at least, would not
> normally
> > be thought to: obvious accidents, for
> example).
>
> "Oops" is indeed much less well defined than
> Lojban
> attitudinals, which generally have much more
> restricted
> senses. "Oops" is certainly not a perfect match
> for {ainai}
> always and everywhere. Hardly any English
> interjection
> (probably none) is a perfect match for a Lojban
> UI.
Some surely come close than "oops" and {ainai}.

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Hardly any English
> > interjection
> > (probably none) is a perfect match for a Lojban
> > UI.
> Some surely come close than "oops" and {ainai}.

No doubt. Indeed I had already used "oops" for another
attitudinal:

.o'a nai (UI*1)
Attitudinal. Used to express shame / abashment / embarrassment /
humiliation / mortification (cf. ckeji)

.o'a nai mi mrilu le notci lo srera noigri
Oops, I posted the message to the wrong newsgroup.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > It is nice to get {ainai} and {ai na}
> separated,
> > since {xnai} and {xna} seems often to be
> equated
> > in these attitudinals
>
> {e'u nai} is the only one I can find where that
> seems to be
> the case. Which one(s) did you have in mind?

{e'u} seems odd in several ways, though not
particularly in this one, but then it is a little
hard to see the difference between urging someone
not to do something and the polar opposite of
urging them to do it and that, once the
distinction is made is hard to distinguish from
taking no action pro or con something (which is
what one would expect {e'u cu'i} to be rather
than giving up a previous suggestion. It may be
that similar problems (whether because these
notions are rather vague to begin with or are
merely described rather vaguely) lead to the
uncertainty of just what the negative — and now
and even moreso the neutral — are meant to mean.

> >(and even more so in BAI).
>
> With BAIs, it is never the case that {bai nai
> ko'a} is
> equated with {bai ko'a naku}. Which case did
> you
> have in mind?
>
I am glad to hear that has been straightened out
as well. At one point (about the last time I
looked in, I suppose) the line between {BAInai}
and {BAI na} was fluctuating all over the place
and at least some people were equating them in
most cases (this tended to be associated with an
overly literal and formulaic reading of the
connection between BAI and the "corresponding"
predicates).

> > The {ainai} {aicu'i} distinction seems to me
> to
> > be less clear and less useful. If I have not
> yet
> > formulated an intention about something then
> I
> > have no intention about it. The most that
> can be
> > said as an intermeidate position is that for
> some
> > things about which I have so far no
> intention, I
> > intend to formulate an intention — and for
> > others I don't.
>
> Not everybody is as decisive as you though. I
> often
> find myself wavering in a state where I have an
>
> intention and at the same time I don't.

I am not terribly decisive but I don't live in
contradictions either, as the situation of having
and not having an intention about some one thing
would be. I may fluctuate back and forth very
rapidly but that just means that I have no fixed
intention (which might be equated with not really
having an intention at all — yet). Is this
fluctuating state what {aicu'i} is expressing?
That is not what "neutral" suggests — but then,
it is not clear what the opposite of "intention"
is in attitudinal terms so it is hard to say what
lies in between.
>
> > But using either {nai} or {cu'i}
> > for these second order intentions does not
> seem
> > to me to have any justification other than a
> > remote preactical one — and it violates
> > compositionality, of course. One would
> normally
> > assume (except for this use of {nai}) that
> the
> > things like {cu'i} had to do with the
> strength of
> > one's resolve — maybe something along the
> likes
> > of thevarious old "shall"-"will" distinctions
> > (which no one can now — nor ever, so far as
> I
> > can tell — remember consistently).
>
> But strength is handled by {ru'e} (weak), {sai}
> (strong}
> and {cai} (stronger).
This whole "system" seems to be getting more and
more muddled: {cu'i} is the midpoint on a seven-
point scale of something or other (whether you
call it strength or not) of which {ru'e}, {sai}
and {cai} are the increasing stronger values,
applied going off in the general areas x and
{xnai}. As noted, since it is not clear what
{ainai} means (except not {ai na}), it is not
clear what the midpoint is like nor what strength
is. The natural reading (in which {ai nai} is
{ai na}) would have {ai cu'i} as completely
uncommitted in the area, with tending toward and
against running off through the "strength"
markers. But if {ainai} is "uncommitted in the
area," the polar opposite of "commiitted"
("intends"), the middle point comes out somewhere
in the middle of {ai sai} or maybe {ai ru'e} on
the basis of strength, and the position of
fluctuating between pro and con doesn't really
appear at all.

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> {e'u} seems odd in several ways, though not
> particularly in this one, but then it is a little
> hard to see the difference between urging someone
> not to do something and the polar opposite of
> urging them to do it and that, once the
> distinction is made is hard to distinguish from
> taking no action pro or con something (which is
> what one would expect {e'u cu'i} to be rather
> than giving up a previous suggestion.

I couldn't make much sense of "abandon suggestion"
for {e'u cu'i} either, so I dropped it from the definitions.

> It may be
> that similar problems (whether because these
> notions are rather vague to begin with or are
> merely described rather vaguely) lead to the
> uncertainty of just what the negative — and now
> and even moreso the neutral — are meant to mean.

So I take it that your "since {xnai} and {xna} seems often
to be equated in these attitudinals" was mostly hyperbole.

> > >(and even more so in BAI).
> >
> > With BAIs, it is never the case that {bai nai
> > ko'a} is
> > equated with {bai ko'a naku}. Which case did
> > you
> > have in mind?
> >
> I am glad to hear that has been straightened out
> as well. At one point (about the last time I
> looked in, I suppose) the line between {BAInai}
> and {BAI na} was fluctuating all over the place

Nothing has changed since the last time you
participated in the discussion, as far as I know.

> and at least some people were equating them in
> most cases (this tended to be associated with an
> overly literal and formulaic reading of the
> connection between BAI and the "corresponding"
> predicates).

For BAI = fi'o broda, we have BAI nai = fi'o na broda.

Notice that {bai nai ko'a} = {fi'o na broda ko'a} is very
different from {bai ko'a na ku} = {fi'o broda ko'a na ku}.

The {nai} in {bai nai} negates the underlying predicate,
i.e. the inner meaning of {bai}, it does not negate the
main selbri which gets an additional place with the
{bai} tag.

Similarly, for UInai, {nai} often negates the inner meaning
of the UI, it generally does not negate the bridi which the
UI modifies.

> Is this
> fluctuating state what {aicu'i} is expressing?
> That is not what "neutral" suggests — but then,
> it is not clear what the opposite of "intention"
> is in attitudinal terms so it is hard to say what
> lies in between.

I agree there is no obvious meaning for {aicu'i}.

I think the opposites intentional - unintentional for
{ai} {ainai} are fairly obvious, but maybe that's just me.

I also think that the "indecision" proposed in the ma'oste
for {aicu'i} is at least reasonable and can be understood
as an intermediate state between intent and unintentionality.

> This whole "system" seems to be getting more and
> more muddled: {cu'i} is the midpoint on a seven-
> point scale of something or other (whether you
> call it strength or not) of which {ru'e}, {sai}
> and {cai} are the increasing stronger values,
> applied going off in the general areas x and
> {xnai}. As noted, since it is not clear what
> {ainai} means (except not {ai na}), it is not
> clear what the midpoint is like nor what strength
> is. The natural reading (in which {ai nai} is
> {ai na})

And I thought you approved of {ainai} not being {ai na}!

So, do you have a suggestion, or is this just general
complaining that things are not very clear?

would have {ai cu'i} as completely
> uncommitted in the area, with tending toward and
> against running off through the "strength"
> markers. But if {ainai} is "uncommitted in the
> area," the polar opposite of "commiitted"
> ("intends"), the middle point comes out somewhere
> in the middle of {ai sai} or maybe {ai ru'e} on
> the basis of strength, and the position of
> fluctuating between pro and con doesn't really
> appear at all.

Something like this:

ai cai - extermely determined to
ai sai - very much intending to
ai ru'e - somewhat intending to
ai cu'i - undecided
ai nai ru'e - not really contemplating
ai nai sai - quite unconcerned with
ai nai cai - completely unconcerned with

(The difference between {sai} and {cai} seems to be hardly
ever significant, I think {sai} is the general intensifier and {cai}
is mostly for effect.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:
>>> On 8/7/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rejection/refusal may not be the best keywords, but it's the best I can
>>>> think of. What would you call the intention of not doing something?
>>>
>>> Intention.
>>
>> Well, yes, but we need to have something a bit more specific, to separate
>> it from {ai}.
>
> What I propose is to use {ai} to express either the intention
> of doing or not doing something: {ai mi klama} if I intend to
> go and {ai mi na klama} if I intend to not go, and leave
> {ai nai mi klama} to express that I have no intentions
> about the matter. {ai cu'i mi klama} is something in between:
> I have not yet made up my mind whether or not I intend to go.

Yes, I understand what your proposal is. But you have to bring the section
in line with what the CLL and the cmavo list says.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
- Hvorfor snakker man engelsk p Internet?
- Har du hrt om minste felles nevner?

On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> Yes, I understand what your proposal is. But you have to bring the section
> in line with what the CLL and the cmavo list says.

Only if what they say makes sense to me as shepherd
of the section.

I will not write definitions that are in line with what the CLL
and the cmavo list say just because that's what they say.
I try to follow them as much as possible, but when I consider
those definitions flawed, I will write what I consider better
definitions. I'm very willing to discuss and consider
other positions, but a mere "the CLL and the cmavo list
say it" just doesn't do anything for me.

I can certainly not impose my definitions on anyone, so
if they are considered unsatisfactory by two or more
people, and they don't convince me to change them,
they will be voted down. In that case, I have no objection
to stepping down as shepherd and let someone
else take responsibility for whatever modifications they
want to make. I will probably not vote for them, but I will
not half-veto any definitions that the majority approves either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > {e'u} seems odd in several ways, though not
> > particularly in this one, but then it is a
> little
> > hard to see the difference between urging
> someone
> > not to do something and the polar opposite of
> > urging them to do it and that, once the
> > distinction is made is hard to distinguish
> from
> > taking no action pro or con something (which
> is
> > what one would expect {e'u cu'i} to be rather
> > than giving up a previous suggestion.
>
> I couldn't make much sense of "abandon
> suggestion"
> for {e'u cu'i} either, so I dropped it from the
> definitions.

Leaving what? (I can't find your lists in any of
the usual places, but my looking through wiki are
often not successful).

>
> > It may be
> > that similar problems (whether because these
> > notions are rather vague to begin with or are
> > merely described rather vaguely) lead to the
> > uncertainty of just what the negative — and
> now
> > and even moreso the neutral — are meant to
> mean.
>
> So I take it that your "since {xnai} and {xna}
> seems often
> to be equated in these attitudinals" was
> mostly hyperbole.

Only in the sense that I took cases which were
unclear or apparently nonsense as cases of the
identification, which did alwys make sense at
least.

> > > >(and even more so in BAI).
> > >
> > > With BAIs, it is never the case that {bai
> nai
> > > ko'a} is
> > > equated with {bai ko'a naku}. Which case
> did
> > > you
> > > have in mind?

I guess that I don't see the difference you are
making here. The last time I checked I thought
that {no broda ko'a} and {broda ko'a naku} meant
the same thing by you except when explicit
quantifiers were involved (they do mean different
things by me in any case where existence could be
an issue as well).

> > I am glad to hear that has been straightened
> out
> > as well. At one point (about the last time I
> > looked in, I suppose) the line between
> {BAInai}
> > and {BAI na} was fluctuating all over the
> place
>
> Nothing has changed since the last time you
> participated in the discussion, as far as I
> know.
>
> > and at least some people were equating them
> in
> > most cases (this tended to be associated with
> an
> > overly literal and formulaic reading of the
> > connection between BAI and the
> "corresponding"
> > predicates).
>
> For BAI = fi'o broda, we have BAI nai = fi'o na
> broda.
>
> Notice that {bai nai ko'a} = {fi'o na broda
> ko'a} is very
> different from {bai ko'a na ku} = {fi'o broda
> ko'a na ku}.

As noted, I don't quite get the point here. Is
it that in the first case the negativity is
attached only to the buried predicate whereas in
them latter case it leaks out to the (more) main
predication? A look at the examples suggests
that at least often this will work in the way
intended apparently only if {nai} corresponds to
{to'e}, so the "explanation" is not quite
serviceable. Putting that in would eliminate the
possible misinterpretation, but would also
occasionally get the wrong thing (where only {na}
is meant, even if not {naku}) or else something
barely intelligible.
I think — moving back from BAI — this stuff
about {ai} falls into the last category as things
now stand, but I also think that much of this
results from the whole frame of discourse being
unclear.
Does {ai mu klama} implicate (maybe even mean) "I
intend to come" or "I come intentionally" Tense
condsiderations aside, these seem rather
different, especially when mixed with some sort
of negation. "I come accidentally," "I happen to
come", "I come unintentionally" apply to the
second with polar negation, though it is hard to
see what contrary or contradictory negation is
like here. For the first case, we seem to have
only "I do not intend to come" as a negation and
it is as uncertain as "not" usually is: it
clearly means that I have not formulated an
intention to come but it is not clear whether
this means I have formulated an intention
incompatible with coming (most easily an
intention not to come) or simply have no
intention in the area at all. The traditional
list seems to take the strong position: {ainai}
is "intend not," the negation goes into the main
predication. (Note that this is different from
{ienai}as stronger, volitional not merely
factual, and so on.) In this case, the neutral
position is just having no intention either way.
If, on the other hand, we take the opposite of
having an intention to come to be having no
intention about coming (which would also be the
opposite of intending not to come), that is
decisive and indecisive, it is not clear what a
neutral position can be (of course, there is no
law that says there has to be one in every case).

>
> The {nai} in {bai nai} negates the underlying
> predicate,
> i.e. the inner meaning of {bai}, it does not
> negate the
> main selbri which gets an additional place with
> the
> {bai} tag.
>
> Similarly, for UInai, {nai} often negates the
> inner meaning
> of the UI, it generally does not negate the
> bridi which the
> UI modifies.

Some emotions and attitudes clearly have
negations of various sorts: contraries,
contradictories or opposites; it is not clear
that all of them (or even most of them) do while
remaining in the realm of emotions and attitudes.

>
> > Is this
> > fluctuating state what {aicu'i} is
> expressing?
> > That is not what "neutral" suggests — but
> then,
> > it is not clear what the opposite of
> "intention"
> > is in attitudinal terms so it is hard to say
> what
> > lies in between.
>
> I agree there is no obvious meaning for
> {aicu'i}.
>
> I think the opposites intentional -
> unintentional for
> {ai} {ainai} are fairly obvious, but maybe
> that's just me.

In English that is the intentional — accidental
pair, which is the one least likely to be a
matter for expression, while the intend to --
intend to not pairs has clear expression (stress
and the like in English — and the "shall"-"will"
distinction if we knew how it went) and a
meaningful neutral position.

> I also think that the "indecision" proposed in
> the ma'oste
> for {aicu'i} is at least reasonable and can be
> understood
> as an intermediate state between intent and
> unintentionality.

Only when "unintend" means "intend not,"
otherwise "unintend" seems to be indecision
already.

>
> > This whole "system" seems to be getting more
> and
> > more muddled: {cu'i} is the midpoint on a
> seven-
> > point scale of something or other (whether
> you
> > call it strength or not) of which {ru'e},
> {sai}
> > and {cai} are the increasing stronger values,
> > applied going off in the general areas x and
> > {xnai}. As noted, since it is not clear what
> > {ainai} means (except not {ai na}), it is not
> > clear what the midpoint is like nor what
> strength
> > is. The natural reading (in which {ai nai}
> is
> > {ai na})
>
> And I thought you approved of {ainai} not being
> {ai na}!
>
> So, do you have a suggestion, or is this just
> general
> complaining that things are not very clear?
>
Well, it is a complaint that things are not very
clear and I have made that way too often before.
In this case, it seems to me that the status quo
ante was just fine and the move away from it
accomplishes nothing but muddlification.

> would have {ai cu'i} as completely
> > uncommitted in the area, with tending toward
> and
> > against running off through the "strength"
> > markers. But if {ainai} is "uncommitted in
> the
> > area," the polar opposite of "commiitted"
> > ("intends"), the middle point comes out
> somewhere
> > in the middle of {ai sai} or maybe {ai ru'e}
> on
> > the basis of strength, and the position of
> > fluctuating between pro and con doesn't
> really
> > appear at all.
>
> Something like this:
>
> ai cai - extermely determined to
> ai sai - very much intending to
> ai ru'e - somewhat intending to
> ai cu'i - undecided
> ai nai ru'e - not really contemplating
> ai nai sai - quite unconcerned with
> ai nai cai - completely unconcerned with

Ahah! Now, "unconcerned with" introduces (or
make clear what was obscure before) a new aspect
to the whole discussion. We now have the
x-xcu'i-xnai as "decided-undecided-indifferent,"
which fits together sensibly. But can it be what
{ai} was meant to be? {ainai} as "Whatever!" does
not seem to fit with "intend/tion" (which may be
the problem to begin with, although it fit the
old version just fine).

> (The difference between {sai} and {cai} seems
> to be hardly
> ever significant, I think {sai} is the general
> intensifier and {cai}
> is mostly for effect.)

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>> Yes, I understand what your proposal is. But you have to bring the section
>> in line with what the CLL and the cmavo list says.
>
> Only if what they say makes sense to me as shepherd
> of the section.
>
> I will not write definitions that are in line with what the CLL
> and the cmavo list say just because that's what they say.
> I try to follow them as much as possible, but when I consider
> those definitions flawed, I will write what I consider better
> definitions.

The CLL's definition doesn't look flawed to me, it only has what could be
considered an unfortunate wording ("refusal"). That the one word for ainai
seems wrong should be no reason to redefine the other points on the scale.

Or is there some other flaw that I have missed?

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Information wants to be anthropomorphized!

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I couldn't make much sense of "abandon
> > suggestion"
> > for {e'u cu'i} either, so I dropped it from the
> > definitions.
>
> Leaving what? (I can't find your lists in any of
> the usual places, but my looking through wiki are
> often not successful).

Not all {cu'i}'s have definitions. The page under discussion is:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Irrealis%20Attitudinals>

> > > > >(and even more so in BAI).
> > > >
> > > > With BAIs, it is never the case that {bai nai
> > > > ko'a} is equated with {bai ko'a naku}.
>
> I guess that I don't see the difference you are
> making here. The last time I checked I thought
> that {no broda ko'a} and {broda ko'a naku} meant
> the same thing by you except when explicit
> quantifiers were involved (they do mean different
> things by me in any case where existence could be
> an issue as well).

{na broda ko'a} and {broda ko'a naku} do mean the same
thing by me, yes.

{bai nai broda} and {na bai broda} mean very different things.

The first one says that broda happens, just not under compulsion.
The second one says that (broda under compulsion) does not
happen. It doesn't say that broda happens.

> > For BAI = fi'o broda, we have BAI nai = fi'o na
> > broda.
> >
> > Notice that {bai nai ko'a} = {fi'o na broda
> > ko'a} is very
> > different from {bai ko'a na ku} = {fi'o broda
> > ko'a na ku}.
>
> As noted, I don't quite get the point here. Is
> it that in the first case the negativity is
> attached only to the buried predicate whereas in
> them latter case it leaks out to the (more) main
> predication?

Indeed.

> A look at the examples suggests
> that at least often this will work in the way
> intended apparently only if {nai} corresponds to
> {to'e}, so the "explanation" is not quite
> serviceable.

For BAI = fi'o broda, we get to'e BAI = fi'o to'e broda,
so no, it is in general not the same thing.

> Putting that in would eliminate the
> possible misinterpretation, but would also
> occasionally get the wrong thing (where only {na}
> is meant, even if not {naku}) or else something
> barely intelligible.

I don't know what you mean by that.

> I think — moving back from BAI — this stuff
> about {ai} falls into the last category as things
> now stand, but I also think that much of this
> results from the whole frame of discourse being
> unclear.
> Does {ai mu klama} implicate (maybe even mean) "I
> intend to come" or "I come intentionally" Tense
> condsiderations aside, these seem rather
> different, especially when mixed with some sort
> of negation.

{ai mi ba klama} is "I intend to come"
{ai mi ca klama} is "I come intentionally"
{ai mi klama} could be either, depending on context.

> "I come accidentally," "I happen to
> come", "I come unintentionally" apply to the
> second with polar negation, though it is hard to
> see what contrary or contradictory negation is
> like here. For the first case, we seem to have
> only "I do not intend to come" as a negation and
> it is as uncertain as "not" usually is: it
> clearly means that I have not formulated an
> intention to come but it is not clear whether
> this means I have formulated an intention
> incompatible with coming (most easily an
> intention not to come) or simply have no
> intention in the area at all.

In English, "I have no intention of coming" usually means
that I do have the intention of not coming, despite the surface
form.

> The traditional
> list seems to take the strong position: {ainai}
> is "intend not," the negation goes into the main
> predication.

Yes, even though the keywords are not really appropriate,
because "intend not" is not necessarily a rejection or a refusal
of something. Nobody need have asked.

> > So, do you have a suggestion, or is this just
> > general
> > complaining that things are not very clear?
> >
> Well, it is a complaint that things are not very
> clear and I have made that way too often before.

Indeed.

> In this case, it seems to me that the status quo
> ante was just fine and the move away from it
> accomplishes nothing but muddlification.

Hm. So you are now in favour of {ainai} = {ai na}?

> > Something like this:
> >
> > ai cai - extermely determined to
> > ai sai - very much intending to
> > ai ru'e - somewhat intending to
> > ai cu'i - undecided
> > ai nai ru'e - not really contemplating
> > ai nai sai - quite unconcerned with
> > ai nai cai - completely unconcerned with
>
> Ahah!

I tremble at those "ahah!" of yours, as they usually mean you
will come up with an interpretation that has little or nothing to do
with what I intended.

>Now, "unconcerned with" introduces (or
> make clear what was obscure before) a new aspect
> to the whole discussion. We now have the
> x-xcu'i-xnai as "decided-undecided-indifferent,"
> which fits together sensibly. But can it be what
> {ai} was meant to be? {ainai} as "Whatever!" does
> not seem to fit with "intend/tion" (which may be
> the problem to begin with, although it fit the
> old version just fine).

I meant "unconcerned" as "not-on-my-mind", not as "indifferent".
Probably not the best choice of word. "Not contemplating" might
be better.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> The CLL's definition doesn't look flawed to me, it only has what could be
> considered an unfortunate wording ("refusal").

But that single word is all CLL has to say about {ai nai}. There is no
further explanation or example, is there?

> That the one word for ainai
> seems wrong should be no reason to redefine the other points on the scale.

I have left the two other points untouched, haven't I?

> Or is there some other flaw that I have missed?

No, just that one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>> The CLL's definition doesn't look flawed to me, it only has what could be
>> considered an unfortunate wording ("refusal").
>
> But that single word is all CLL has to say about {ai nai}. There is no
> further explanation or example, is there?

Correct. Hence I appeal to usage.

>> That the one word for ainai
>> seems wrong should be no reason to redefine the other points on the scale.
>
> I have left the two other points untouched, haven't I?

To quote an earlier post:

> What I propose is to use {ai} to express either the intention
> of doing or not doing something: {ai mi klama} if I intend to
> go and {ai mi na klama} if I intend to not go,

This is where I misread. In both these examples, the intention is of the
referent of the main bridi actually happening, and not the opposite. So
there is no change.

> and leave
> {ai nai mi klama} to express that I have no intentions
> about the matter. {ai cu'i mi klama} is something in between:
> I have not yet made up my mind whether or not I intend to go.

Having no intentions and having not made up one's mind seems to amount to
the same thing.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengevter. Forutsatt at ingen p basen p
Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen

On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>
> Having no intentions and having not made up one's mind seems to amount to
> the same thing.

If I hurt you unintentionally, I have no intention of hurting you.
That's different from my not having made up my mind about
hurting you (or from having a positive intention of not hurting you).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

>>> .ai nai (UI*1) Attitudinal. Used to express unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
>>
>>> ai nai changed from rejection / refusal (which is i'a nai) to unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness.
>>
>> This is at odds with both the CLL, the cmavo list, and usage. You should change it back to rejection/refusal.
>>
>> -arj
>
> rejection/refusal is the opposite of acceptance/accession/consent, not the
> opposite of intent/purpose/design.

This is a wording I would be reasonably happy with:

.ai (UI1)
Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / avoidance / rejection /
refusal (cf. fanta, rivbi)

As examples, one or both of these:
.ainai mi gunka ca le pavdei
I'm not going to work on Monday.

.ainai mi jmina lo valsi poi mi finti
I actively avoid adding words of my own devising.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. (Wethern's Law)

---

> On 8/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I couldn't make much sense of "abandon
> > > suggestion"
> > > for {e'u cu'i} either, so I dropped it from
> the
> > > definitions.
> >
> > Leaving what? (I can't find your lists in any
> of
> > the usual places, but my looking through wiki
> are
> > often not successful).
>
> Not all {cu'i}'s have definitions. The page
> under discussion is:
>
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Irrealis%20Attitudinals>

Thanx

> > > > > >(and even more so in BAI).
> > > > >
> > > > > With BAIs, it is never the case that
> {bai nai
> > > > > ko'a} is equated with {bai ko'a naku}.
> >
> > I guess that I don't see the difference you
> are
> > making here. The last time I checked I
> thought
> > that {no broda ko'a} and {broda ko'a naku}
> meant
> > the same thing by you except when explicit
> > quantifiers were involved (they do mean
> different
> > things by me in any case where existence
> could be
> > an issue as well).
>
> {na broda ko'a} and {broda ko'a naku} do mean
> the same
> thing by me, yes.
>
> {bai nai broda} and {na bai broda} mean very
> different things.

Is this the issue? This is somewhat clearer than
the earlier discussion, though I think to the
same point.

> The first one says that broda happens, just not
> under compulsion.
> The second one says that (broda under
> compulsion) does not
> happen. It doesn't say that broda happens.
>
> > > For BAI = fi'o broda, we have BAI nai =
> fi'o na
> > > broda.
> > >
> > > Notice that {bai nai ko'a} = {fi'o na broda
> > > ko'a} is very
> > > different from {bai ko'a na ku} = {fi'o
> broda
> > > ko'a na ku}.
> >
> > As noted, I don't quite get the point here.
> Is
> > it that in the first case the negativity is
> > attached only to the buried predicate whereas
> in
> > them latter case it leaks out to the (more)
> main
> > predication?
>
> Indeed.
>
> > A look at the examples suggests
> > that at least often this will work in the way
> > intended apparently only if {nai} corresponds
> to
> > {to'e}, so the "explanation" is not quite
> > serviceable.
>
> For BAI = fi'o broda, we get to'e BAI = fi'o
> to'e broda,
> so no, it is in general not the same thing.
My point was that, as you are setting things up,
{x nai} seems to be a polar opposite not just a
contrary or contradictory negation, so {to'e}
without ever using the word.

> > Putting that in would eliminate the
> > possible misinterpretation, but would also
> > occasionally get the wrong thing (where only
> {na}
> > is meant, even if not {naku}) or else
> something
> > barely intelligible.
>
> I don't know what you mean by that.

Just say that {x nai}is related to {to'e} not
{na} (or, rather, since {to'e} is related to
{na}, that it is related directly to {to'e}). I
am not sure this always works, but that would
make it even more important to note the cases
where it does.

> > I think — moving back from BAI — this stuff
> > about {ai} falls into the last category as
> things
> > now stand, but I also think that much of this
> > results from the whole frame of discourse
> being
> > unclear.
> > Does {ai mu klama} implicate (maybe even
> mean) "I
> > intend to come" or "I come intentionally"
> Tense
> > condsiderations aside, these seem rather
> > different, especially when mixed with some
> sort
> > of negation.
>
> {ai mi ba klama} is "I intend to come"
> {ai mi ca klama} is "I come intentionally"
> {ai mi klama} could be either, depending on
> context.

This looks like amphiboly to me; {ai} changes
meanings — and indeed semantic categories --
from expression an intention to making a claim
about the way I come.

> > "I come accidentally," "I happen to
> > come", "I come unintentionally" apply to the
> > second with polar negation, though it is hard
> to
> > see what contrary or contradictory negation
> is
> > like here. For the first case, we seem to
> have
> > only "I do not intend to come" as a negation
> and
> > it is as uncertain as "not" usually is: it
> > clearly means that I have not formulated an
> > intention to come but it is not clear whether
> > this means I have formulated an intention
> > incompatible with coming (most easily an
> > intention not to come) or simply have no
> > intention in the area at all.
>
> In English, "I have no intention of coming"
> usually means
> that I do have the intention of not coming,
> despite the surface
> form.

I think that that is correct and it fits in with
{ai nai} as "intend not to" rather than either
"accidentally" or "I don't give a damn." At this
point I confess I have forgotten what the
proposal was and who's on what side, but the
matter still (indeed more so) seems muddled.

> > The traditional
> > list seems to take the strong position:
> {ainai}
> > is "intend not," the negation goes into the
> main
> > predication.
>
> Yes, even though the keywords are not really
> appropriate,
> because "intend not" is not necessarily a
> rejection or a refusal
> of something. Nobody need have asked.

We can reject an activity even if nobody has
asked us about it, surely. I suppose that we
have to at least have proposed it to ourselves
then. But I don't think we can reject nor intend
not to do something that we have never
considered.

> > > So, do you have a suggestion, or is this
> just
> > > general
> > > complaining that things are not very clear?
> > >
> > Well, it is a complaint that things are not
> very
> > clear and I have made that way too often
> before.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > In this case, it seems to me that the status
> quo
> > ante was just fine and the move away from it
> > accomplishes nothing but muddlification.
>
> Hm. So you are now in favour of {ainai} = {ai
> na}?
>
> > > Something like this:
> > >
> > > ai cai - extermely determined to
> > > ai sai - very much intending to
> > > ai ru'e - somewhat intending to
> > > ai cu'i - undecided
> > > ai nai ru'e - not really contemplating
> > > ai nai sai - quite unconcerned with
> > > ai nai cai - completely unconcerned with
> >
> > Ahah!
>
> I tremble at those "ahah!" of yours, as they
> usually mean you
> will come up with an interpretation that has
> little or nothing to do
> with what I intended.
>
> >Now, "unconcerned with" introduces (or
> > make clear what was obscure before) a new
> aspect
> > to the whole discussion. We now have the
> > x-xcu'i-xnai as
> "decided-undecided-indifferent,"
> > which fits together sensibly. But can it be
> what
> > {ai} was meant to be? {ainai} as "Whatever!"
> does
> > not seem to fit with "intend/tion" (which may
> > be the problem to begin with, although it
fit > >the old version just fine).

>I meant "unconcerned" as "not-on-my-mind", not
as >"indifferent".
>Probably not the best choice of word. "Not
>contemplating" might
>be better.

Understood: "determined - waffling - unexamined,"
maybe. And this really does seem to be
expressible. Further, {nai} is pretty clearly
not {to'e} in this case, that is closer to
waffling than unexamined, but even that is
contrary, not opposite.

---

> On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
> wrote:
> > The CLL's definition doesn't look flawed to
> me, it only has what could be
> > considered an unfortunate wording
> ("refusal").
>
> But that single word is all CLL has to say
> about {ai nai}. There is no
> further explanation or example, is there?
>
> > That the one word for ainai
> > seems wrong should be no reason to redefine
> the other points on the scale.
>
> I have left the two other points untouched,
> haven't I?

Not really; {ai} now expresses any intention to
do or not do, while the latter was what {ainai}
(apparently) used to mean.

> > Or is there some other flaw that I have
> missed?
>
> No, just that one.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>

On 8/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>
> This is a wording I would be reasonably happy with:
>
> .ai (UI1)
> Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / avoidance / rejection /
> refusal (cf. fanta, rivbi)

I have no problem with "non-intent", which is basically
what I'm suggesting.

I think "refusal" is clearly {vi'o nai} and "rejection" {i'a nai}.
"Avoidance" is used for {a'a nai}. That doesn't mean
necessarily they couldn't be used again, but I don't think
they are the same as non-intent.

> As examples, one or both of these:
> .ainai mi gunka ca le pavdei
> I'm not going to work on Monday.

OK. It's not that I refuse to, it's just that I have no plans
to do it.

> .ainai mi jmina lo valsi poi mi finti
> I actively avoid adding words of my own devising.

I reject the sense of "actively avoid" in {ainai}.
Simply "I don't mean to add words of my own devising"
(i.e. if I happen to add one, it is because I didn't realize
it was me who coined it.)

For actively avoid I would say: .ai mi na jmina lo valsi poi mi finti

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > {ai mi ba klama} is "I intend to come"
> > {ai mi ca klama} is "I come intentionally"
> > {ai mi klama} could be either, depending on
> > context.
>
> This looks like amphiboly to me; {ai} changes
> meanings — and indeed semantic categories --
> from expression an intention to making a claim
> about the way I come.

OK, change the second one to:
"I intend to be coming" i.e. whether or not it is the
case that I am actually coming, my intention is that
I am. In general, if I am coming I would know it, but
in some special cases I might not be certain.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Let's see if I understand the issues here.
There are like three ideas about what {ai - ai
cu'i - ai nai} should mean.

The original (as near as we can make out) was
intend to — waffling — intend not to.
All of these are clearly expressible in some way.

xorxes' proposal is
have an intention about — am undecided about --
have not considered.
Again, all expressible in some way.

Another reading of xorxes (or another xorxes'
proposal)
intentionally (no clear neutral ground)
unintentionally (accidentally)
These are not so obviously expressible and do not
fit well into the pattern of {aV}, which seem to
be mainly (though not exclusively without a lot
of work) future-oriented irrealis attitudinals
(hope, fear that, desire and the like), whereas
this one is past (including the present) oriented
and realis, indeed affirming. I think this last
case then drops out of consideration, leaving the
other two. Of them — assuming that there is not
a heavy load of usage for the old version --
xorxes' seems the most useful, extending the
system to cover a real situation that is not
otherwise dealt with. On these grounds I wnder if
a similar move might not be called for in the
case of {i'e}, which patterns like the original
{ai} or is disapproval stronger than approving
the negation (yes, it is) and non-approval broad
enough to cover the case where we haven't thought
about the matter as well as the case where we
haven't made up our mind (probably). OK, so skip
that suggestion. I suppose that {ie} can't be
rewritten in this way, since, once the proposal
is made, we can't claim not to have thought about
it, only that we have not yet decided, {iecu'i}.

On 8/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have left the two other points untouched,
> > haven't I?
>
> Not really; {ai} now expresses any intention to
> do or not do,

{ai} has always been usable for that, hasn't it?
That hasn't changed. Does anyone object to
{ai mi na klama} meaning "I intend not to come"?

> while the latter was what {ainai}
> (apparently) used to mean.

Apparently {ai nai} was taken to mean {ai na}, yes,
but I don't think there was any doubt about {ai na}
itself.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > {ai mi ba klama} is "I intend to come"
> > > {ai mi ca klama} is "I come intentionally"
> > > {ai mi klama} could be either, depending on
> > > context.
> >
> > This looks like amphiboly to me; {ai} changes
> > meanings — and indeed semantic categories --
> > from expression an intention to making a
> claim
> > about the way I come.
>
> OK, change the second one to:
> "I intend to be coming" i.e. whether or not it
> is the
> case that I am actually coming, my intention is
> that
> I am. In general, if I am coming I would know
> it, but
> in some special cases I might not be certain.

I don't think "I intend to be coming" in English
can be used when I am actually in the process of
coming — and know I am — unless there is some
doubt about my completing the process. And it
certainly can't be used once I have arrived
(which is the point of your second case, I think).

On 8/9/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I don't think "I intend to be coming" in English
> can be used when I am actually in the process of
> coming — and know I am — unless there is some
> doubt about my completing the process. And it
> certainly can't be used once I have arrived
> (which is the point of your second case, I think).

OK, but that's a pecularity of English that we need
not import into Lojban. In Lojban {ai} would only
indicate my intentions, independently of
their degree of completion or realization (which
can be indicated by other means).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/9/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think "I intend to be coming" in
> English
> > can be used when I am actually in the process
> of
> > coming — and know I am — unless there is
> some
> > doubt about my completing the process. And
> it
> > certainly can't be used once I have arrived
> > (which is the point of your second case, I
> think).
>
> OK, but that's a pecularity of English that we
> need
> not import into Lojban. In Lojban {ai} would
> only
> indicate my intentions, independently of
> their degree of completion or realization
> (which
> can be indicated by other means).

Well, I think I disagree. I think that in fact
one can only intend something which has not
occurred (is not known to have occurred, at
least, or — even better — whose opportunity for
occurring is not known to be closed). Thus, to
say I am doing something intentionally is to
report on a past situation (and so not be
appropriate for UI) when I had that intention,
which I am now fulfilling. It make no sense to
intend to do something already known done, any
more than it makes sense to hope for something
already known to be decided. The nearest thing
to intending to do something one is doing is to
do it deliberately, which is not a plausible UI either.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

>> As examples, one or both of these:
>> .ainai mi gunka ca le pavdei
>> I'm not going to work on Monday.
>
> OK. It's not that I refuse to, it's just that I have no plans
> to do it.

Rather, that I have plans of not doing it.

>> .ainai mi jmina lo valsi poi mi finti
>> I actively avoid adding words of my own devising.
>
> I reject the sense of "actively avoid" in {ainai}.
> Simply "I don't mean to add words of my own devising"
> (i.e. if I happen to add one, it is because I didn't realize
> it was me who coined it.)

I'll have to think about that, as I suspect it to be
non-baseline-compliant.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Public Notice as Required by Law: Any Use of This Product, in Any
Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in the
Universe. Although No Liability Is Implied Herein, the Consumer Is
Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to the Heat Death of the
Universe. --Susan Hewitt and Edward Subitzky

From the section:

>.ai nai (UI*1)

> Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)

This is not only noncompliant with the baseline, but it is also confusing. Accidentality and unplannedness doesn't have anything to do with it.

Also, if you need help with the keywords, I suppose I could do some.

-arj

> >.ai nai (UI*1)
>
> > Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
>
> This is not only noncompliant with the baseline, but it is also confusing. Accidentality and unplannedness doesn't have anything to do with it.

Nothing to do with what? They are all close synonyms.
>From dictionary.com definitions:

accidental: Without intent.
unplanned: Not intended; unintentional.
intend: To have in mind; plan
unintended: Not deliberate or intentional; unplanned

What you may mean is that they don't correspond
with "intent not to", but we are and have always been
in agreement about that.

> Also, if you need help with the keywords, I suppose I could do some.

In this section, the keywords are basically all the words
that appear in the definitions. Is it worth listing them again?
If I left out some I might add them to the definition itself,
or you are welcome to suggest others if they won't fit well
in the definition. Were you thinking of any words in particular?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> > >.ai nai (UI*1)
> >
> > > Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent
> / unintentionality / accidentality /
> unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
> >
> > This is not only noncompliant with the
> baseline, but it is also confusing.
> Accidentality and unplannedness doesn't have
> anything to do with it.
>
> Nothing to do with what? They are all close
> synonyms.
> >From dictionary.com definitions:
>
> accidental: Without intent.
> unplanned: Not intended; unintentional.
> intend: To have in mind; plan
> unintended: Not deliberate or intentional;
> unplanned
>
> What you may mean is that they don't correspond
>
> with "intent not to", but we are and have
> always been
> in agreement about that.
>
>
> > Also, if you need help with the keywords, I
> suppose I could do some.
>
> In this section, the keywords are basically all
> the words
> that appear in the definitions. Is it worth
> listing them again?
> If I left out some I might add them to the
> definition itself,
> or you are welcome to suggest others if they
> won't fit well
> in the definition. Were you thinking of any
> words in particular?

Now I am confused a bit. I thought that the
spread you had prpared was: determined (intend to
or not to/to not)-- undecided (thought about but
not yet formulated an intention) — not yet
thought about even. All of these formulated as
irrealis attitudes, like the title of the page
says. Now, unless the words are more misleading
than even arj notes, we seem to have to have,
first of all, a factual claim, not an attitude
(something about an occurred or occurring event,
not about a possibility whose time is not yet --
or only just — come). And secondly (and as a
consequent?) the negative is only the
contradictory negation of the simplest form of
the psoitive, not the strong opposite. That is,
it included the neutral case as well the (as I
understood it) negative case and even the
external negation of the original system. that
is, it seems to combine the worst possible
features of all the (apparent) proposals. if we
take out the factual elements (which don't
belong, as noted), especially "accidentality,"
it is possible to stretch the ordinary
understanding of the remaining (insofar as these
odd words have ordinary understandings) to bring
them almost back into line with what I took to be
the proposal before: reading "non-intent" as
having no consideration of intention at all and
similarly for "unintentionality" and
"unplannedness." But then the keywords — or the
definition — needs a footnote warning the the
meaings have stretched in a particular way.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

>>> .ai nai (UI*1)
>>
>>> Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness. (cf. selsnuti)
>>
>> This is not only noncompliant with the baseline, but it is also confusing. Accidentality and unplannedness doesn't have anything to do with it.
>
> Nothing to do with what? They are all close synonyms.
>> From dictionary.com definitions:
>
> accidental: Without intent.
> unplanned: Not intended; unintentional.
> intend: To have in mind; plan
> unintended: Not deliberate or intentional; unplanned
>
> What you may mean is that they don't correspond
> with "intent not to", but we are and have always been
> in agreement about that.

That is what I meant by non-intent, and the other synonyms which you
removed from the definition suggestion. I want to have a definition that
is baseline-compliant, and I suggested one to you.

>> Also, if you need help with the keywords, I suppose I could do some.
>
> In this section, the keywords are basically all the words
> that appear in the definitions.

Including "used", to", and so on?

> Is it worth listing them again?

Yes, to take the burden off those who are going to put the results of the
section into the dictionary. It is important that they are not seen as
making decisions of their own.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
<Nixon> Etter revolusjonen har jeg ordnet meg slik at jeg fr meg statue.
<Nixon> Har avtalt dette med nkkelpersoner p venstresiden.
<Nixon> Som takk for min innsats.
<Nixon> Det blir en 150m hy statue i havnebassenget.
<Kre> skal du ha restaurant i hodet?

On 8/10/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > What you may mean is that they don't correspond
> > with "intent not to", but we are and have always been
> > in agreement about that.
>
> That is what I meant by non-intent, and the other synonyms which you
> removed from the definition suggestion.

Arrghh, this is getting silly.

"Non-intent" is not a standard word, so it is not in most
dictionaries and I can't point you to a standard definition,
but it is plainly not synonymous with "rejection/refusal".
Here is an example of usage of "nonintent":

"This statute is thus different from one that simply outlawed
any public burning or mutilation of the flag, regardless of the
expressive intent or 459 U.S. 949 , 955 nonintent of the
actor."

Taken from:
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=459&invol=949>

Where hopefully you will agree that nonintent = lack of intent.

In any case, it is also very clear to me that you don't
want {ai nai} used to indicate lack of intent.

> I want to have a definition that
> is baseline-compliant, and I suggested one to you.

I know. And I gave you my reasons why I reject that
definition.

BTW, if you insist so much on retaining {ai nai} = "intent
not to", shouldn't you argue also for {e'o nai} = "request
not to"?

And if those were adopted, to be systematic we should
also have {e'a nai} = "permission not to", {e'e nai} =
"encouragement not to", {e'i nai} = "command not to",
{e'u nai} = "suggestion not to", {ei nai} = "ought not",
{au nai} = "whish that not", {a'o nai} = "hope that not".

I don't see why {ai} should be the only one following that
pattern. Just because it was oddly glossed as
"rejection/refusal" in the ma'oste?

> >> Also, if you need help with the keywords, I suppose I could do some.
> >
> > In this section, the keywords are basically all the words
> > that appear in the definitions.
>
> Including "used", to", and so on?

Heh.

> > Is it worth listing them again?
>
> Yes, to take the burden off those who are going to put the results of the
> section into the dictionary. It is important that they are not seen as
> making decisions of their own.

If we were writing things in a machine readable format,
that would make sense. Otherwise, I don't see what kind
of decision you mean. Sorting out "used to express"
from the actual content?

The danger of duplicating the lists is that a word is left out
of one of them and then people start making interpretations
about why this or that word is in the definition but not used as
a keyword or viceversa. A keyword list only makes sense if it
adds something that is not there in the definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/10/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:
>>> What you may mean is that they don't correspond
>>> with "intent not to", but we are and have always been
>>> in agreement about that.
>>
>> That is what I meant by non-intent, and the other synonyms which you
>> removed from the definition suggestion.

> "Non-intent" is not a standard word, so it is not in most
> dictionaries and I can't point you to a standard definition,
> but it is plainly not synonymous with "rejection/refusal".
> Here is an example of usage of "nonintent":
>
> "This statute is thus different from one that simply outlawed
> any public burning or mutilation of the flag, regardless of the
> expressive intent or 459 U.S. 949 , 955 nonintent of the
> actor."
>
> Taken from:
> <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=459&invol=949>
>
> Where hopefully you will agree that nonintent = lack of intent.
>
> In any case, it is also very clear to me that you don't
> want {ai nai} used to indicate lack of intent.

Okay. I agree that that is misleading. How about simply removing
"non-intent" so that we get:

Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / avoidance / rejection /
refusal (cf. fanta, rivbi)

?

>> I want to have a definition that
>> is baseline-compliant, and I suggested one to you.
>
> I know. And I gave you my reasons why I reject that
> definition.

Yes, but a poorly worded definition surely can't be a reason good enough
to throw out the intent of the old definition and create a wholly new one.

> BTW, if you insist so much on retaining {ai nai} = "intent
> not to", shouldn't you argue also for {e'o nai} = "request
> not to"?

Actually, I'd completely overlooked that. Thanks for pointing it out!

Suggested new definition:

.e'o (UI1)
Attitudinal. Used to make a negative request. (cf. cpedu, pe'u)

Suggested new examples:

.e'onai ri zmadu lemi se cpadji
Don't give me more than I want.

Artificial example:
.e'onai do stapa le mlatu
Don't step on the cat!

> And if those were adopted, to be systematic we should
> also have {e'a nai} = "permission not to", {e'e nai} =
> "encouragement not to", {e'i nai} = "command not to",
> {e'u nai} = "suggestion not to", {ei nai} = "ought not",
> {au nai} = "whish that not", {a'o nai} = "hope that not".

I disagree both that that is more systematic, and that systematicity is
more important than compliance with the baseline and usage.

>>> Is it worth listing them again?
>>
>> Yes, to take the burden off those who are going to put the results of the
>> section into the dictionary. It is important that they are not seen as
>> making decisions of their own.
>
> If we were writing things in a machine readable format,
> that would make sense. Otherwise, I don't see what kind
> of decision you mean. Sorting out "used to express"
> from the actual content?
>
> The danger of duplicating the lists is that a word is left out
> of one of them and then people start making interpretations
> about why this or that word is in the definition but not used as
> a keyword or viceversa. A keyword list only makes sense if it
> adds something that is not there in the definition.

That *is* a good point. I think we should let it stand that way, at least
for now.

On second thought, maybe there could be interjections or adverbs that are
more useful for reverse lookup than "intent", "prohibit", and so on. I see
that you have already used "whoa" as a translation of ".e'e nai" in an
example.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Learn languages!
The more languages you know, the more incomprehensible you can get.

On 8/10/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> > BTW, if you insist so much on retaining {ai nai} = "intent
> > not to", shouldn't you argue also for {e'o nai} = "request
> > not to"?
>
> Actually, I'd completely overlooked that. Thanks for pointing it out!

You're welcome.

> Suggested new definition:
>
> .e'o (UI1)
> Attitudinal. Used to make a negative request. (cf. cpedu, pe'u)
>
> Suggested new examples:
>
> .e'onai ri zmadu lemi se cpadji
> Don't give me more than I want.
>
> Artificial example:
> .e'onai do stapa le mlatu
> Don't step on the cat!

I'm not changing it, but keep them in case my proposal is
rejected and you or someone else takes over as shepherd for
the section.

> > And if those were adopted, to be systematic we should
> > also have {e'a nai} = "permission not to", {e'e nai} =
> > "encouragement not to", {e'i nai} = "command not to",
> > {e'u nai} = "suggestion not to", {ei nai} = "ought not",
> > {au nai} = "whish that not", {a'o nai} = "hope that not".
>
> I disagree both that that is more systematic,

Would you care to ellucidate? I think {UI nai broda}
= {UI na broda} would be pretty systematic, even though
against what I take the spirit of {nai} to be.

>and that systematicity is
> more important than compliance with the baseline and usage.

This, I think, is the issue. We probably both value systematicity,
compliance with ma'oste/CLL and usage, (and I would add
usability and usefulness) but we weigh them differently.

> > The danger of duplicating the lists is that a word is left out
> > of one of them and then people start making interpretations
> > about why this or that word is in the definition but not used as
> > a keyword or viceversa. A keyword list only makes sense if it
> > adds something that is not there in the definition.
>
> That *is* a good point. I think we should let it stand that way, at least
> for now.
>
> On second thought, maybe there could be interjections or adverbs that are
> more useful for reverse lookup than "intent", "prohibit", and so on. I see
> that you have already used "whoa" as a translation of ".e'e nai" in an
> example.

Yes, that's the kind of thing I had in mind for a keyword that
"adds something that is not there in the definition". I should
point out to you that my definitions of {e'e} and {e'i} *may* also
not agree with ma'oste/CLL. It's just that in these cases it's
harder to interpret what exactly the ma'oste/CLL definitions
are.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Personally, I think that trying to find one word
-- or a cluster of single words — to explain how
an expressive word is used is probably oftengoing
to lead to misunderstandings. A scenario would
make more sense: "this word is appropriate when
...." I expect the problems with {ai} can be
repeated mutatis mutandis throughout UI.

---

> On 8/10/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > > What you may mean is that they don't
> correspond
> > > with "intent not to", but we are and have
> always been
> > > in agreement about that.
> >
> > That is what I meant by non-intent, and the
> other synonyms which you
> > removed from the definition suggestion.
>
> Arrghh, this is getting silly.
>
> "Non-intent" is not a standard word, so it is
> not in most
> dictionaries and I can't point you to a
> standard definition,
> but it is plainly not synonymous with
> "rejection/refusal".
> Here is an example of usage of "nonintent":
>
> "This statute is thus different from one that
> simply outlawed
> any public burning or mutilation of the flag,
> regardless of the
> expressive intent or 459 U.S. 949 , 955
> nonintent of the
> actor."
>
> Taken from:
>
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=459&invol=949>
>
> Where hopefully you will agree that nonintent =
> lack of intent.

The problem remains that "lack of intent" is too
vague for your present purpose: it can occur in
at least four different situations: intent not
to, intent to not, indecision, and lack of
considering the situation at all. Arj wants
either the first or second, presumably the first;
I took xorxes as wanting the fourth. But they
are all non-intent to do x.

> In any case, it is also very clear to me that
> you don't
> want {ai nai} used to indicate lack of intent.
>
> > I want to have a definition that
> > is baseline-compliant, and I suggested one to
> you.
>
> I know. And I gave you my reasons why I reject
> that
> definition.
>
> BTW, if you insist so much on retaining {ai
> nai} = "intent
> not to", shouldn't you argue also for {e'o nai}
> = "request
> not to"?
>
> And if those were adopted, to be systematic we
> should
> also have {e'a nai} = "permission not to", {e'e
> nai} =
> "encouragement not to", {e'i nai} = "command
> not to",
> {e'u nai} = "suggestion not to", {ei nai} =
> "ought not",
> {au nai} = "whish that not", {a'o nai} = "hope
> that not".

The pattern argument is an iffy approach. There
are clear cases among UI of opposites, clear
cases (to me) of either {xnai} as "x to not" or
"x not to," cases where the relation to negation
is unclear, and cases of meanings at right angles
to any obvious axis (more or less what the "never
considered" version of {ainai} is). I am not
sure where the preponderance lies, but there is
no unanimity for any one pattern.

> I don't see why {ai} should be the only one
> following that
> pattern. Just because it was oddly glossed as
> "rejection/refusal" in the ma'oste?

Well, there is also the fact that it seems to
have been used that way by the majority of people
who used it at all.

> > >> Also, if you need help with the keywords,
> I suppose I could do some.
> > >
> > > In this section, the keywords are basically
> all the words
> > > that appear in the definitions.
> >
> > Including "used", to", and so on?
>
> Heh.
>
> > > Is it worth listing them again?
> >
> > Yes, to take the burden off those who are
> going to put the results of the
> > section into the dictionary. It is important
> that they are not seen as
> > making decisions of their own.
>
> If we were writing things in a machine readable
> format,
> that would make sense. Otherwise, I don't see
> what kind
> of decision you mean. Sorting out "used to
> express"
> from the actual content?
>
> The danger of duplicating the lists is that a
> word is left out
> of one of them and then people start making
> interpretations
> about why this or that word is in the
> definition but not used as
> a keyword or viceversa. A keyword list only
> makes sense if it
> adds something that is not there in the
> definition.

See above.

On 8/10/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Personally, I think that trying to find one word
> — or a cluster of single words — to explain how
> an expressive word is used is probably oftengoing
> to lead to misunderstandings. A scenario would
> make more sense: "this word is appropriate when
> ...." I expect the problems with {ai} can be
> repeated mutatis mutandis throughout UI.

Yes, that's why I think the examples are the most important
part of the definitions.

> The problem remains that "lack of intent" is too
> vague for your present purpose: it can occur in
> at least four different situations: intent not
> to, intent to not,

(I'm not sure my English is up to telling those two appart,
what's the difference? Googling for "I intend not to" and
"I intend to not", all I can figure out is a difference in
register, formal/informal, but I can't really find a difference
in meaning.)

In any case, those two seem to express intent to me. "Negative
intent" if you want, but not a lack of it.

> indecision, and lack of
> considering the situation at all.

The indecision position is admittedly somewhat artificial, I only
included it because it was already there in the ma'oste/CLL and
I can make some sense of it as a middle ground. It can be seen
as a lack of fully formed intent, but it's surely not am absolute
lack of intent.

> Arj wants
> either the first or second, presumably the first;
> I took xorxes as wanting the fourth. But they
> are all non-intent to do x.

Well, yes, intent to not do x requires non-intent to do x,
but it requires more than that.

> The pattern argument is an iffy approach. There
> are clear cases among UI of opposites, clear
> cases (to me) of either {xnai} as "x to not" or
> "x not to," cases where the relation to negation
> is unclear, and cases of meanings at right angles
> to any obvious axis (more or less what the "never
> considered" version of {ainai} is). I am not
> sure where the preponderance lies, but there is
> no unanimity for any one pattern.

Let's list them then, and compare. The more relevant
ones for this are all in the "irrealis" section, and I have
only 11 there (some may want to argue for removing
or adding some, for example you mentioned "fear that..."
recently, which is not there.)

> > I don't see why {ai} should be the only one
> > following that
> > pattern. Just because it was oddly glossed as
> > "rejection/refusal" in the ma'oste?
>
> Well, there is also the fact that it seems to
> have been used that way by the majority of people
> who used it at all.

Yes, usage is one of the factors to take into considaration.
(I don't consider the usage of {ai nai} to have been very
significant, but not surprizingly it did tend to follow the
keywords. I think I even used it in the Alice translation.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

>> Suggested new definition:
>>
>> .e'o (UI1)
>> Attitudinal. Used to make a negative request. (cf. cpedu, pe'u)
>>
>> Suggested new examples:
>>
>> .e'onai ri zmadu lemi se cpadji
>> Don't give me more than I want.
>>
>> Artificial example:
>> .e'onai do stapa le mlatu
>> Don't step on the cat!
>
> I'm not changing it, but keep them in case my proposal is
> rejected and you or someone else takes over as shepherd for
> the section.

Can't you at least point out some parts of the proposal, so that I can
write one that is more acceptable? I'd hate to see you step down as
shepherd for this section, seeing as you have done a fine job with
most/all of the others.

>> and that systematicity is
>> more important than compliance with the baseline and usage.
>
> This, I think, is the issue. We probably both value systematicity,
> compliance with ma'oste/CLL and usage, (and I would add
> usability and usefulness) but we weigh them differently.

Right.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
If you connect yourself across a 2000V supply, the very best you can
hope for is something like a serious heart attack with severe burns
thrown in for good measure. IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT YOU'LL BE DEAD.
-- John Nelson: Power Supplies & Control Units, in The VHF/UHF DX Book

---

> On 8/10/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Personally, I think that trying to find one
> word
> > — or a cluster of single words — to explain
> how
> > an expressive word is used is probably
> oftengoing
> > to lead to misunderstandings. A scenario
> would
> > make more sense: "this word is appropriate
> when
> > ...." I expect the problems with {ai} can be
> > repeated mutatis mutandis throughout UI.
>
> Yes, that's why I think the examples are the
> most important
> part of the definitions.

They would be if we knew more about them. As it
stands they are open to almost any available
interpretation.

> > The problem remains that "lack of intent" is
> too
> > vague for your present purpose: it can occur
> in
> > at least four different situations: intent
> not
> > to, intent to not,
>
> (I'm not sure my English is up to telling those
> two appart,
> what's the difference? Googling for "I intend
> not to" and
> "I intend to not", all I can figure out is a
> difference in
> register, formal/informal, but I can't really
> find a difference
> in meaning.)
I am being a logician here so it is a scoping
thing. "I intend to not do x" means that that is
my intention without any further specification --
I will resist doing x." "I intend to do not x"
means that I intend to do something other than
(and incompatible with) x at the time of
opportunity for x. Both of these (and the others
as well) fall into the case "I do not intend to
do x," i.e., "I intend to do x" is false (These
are of course descriptions of appropriate times
to say thing with {ai} and {nai} and {na} and so
on, not actual cases of saying these or rather
translations of such).

> In any case, those two seem to express intent
> to me. "Negative
> intent" if you want, but not a lack of it.

They do indeed and negative intent only in the
sense that what is intended is described
negatively. The problem with "non-intent" is
that it has no real use (the law and related
topics are really real, after all) And most of
the others when used with a mention of what is
not intended, are of the broad sort noted above.
This is why spelling out the conditions — or at
least stating flat out that non-intent to do x,
means having no intent with regard to x, even to
the extent of being not yet determined between
yea and nay. (The example with non-intending
symbolic speech or some such does not clearly
give your menaing but is at least as likely just
"whether or not they intended symbolic speech" or
whatever, that is the whole range of "not
intend.")

> > indecision, and lack of
> > considering the situation at all.
>
> The indecision position is admittedly somewhat
> artificial, I only
> included it because it was already there in the
> ma'oste/CLL and
> I can make some sense of it as a middle ground.
> It can be seen
> as a lack of fully formed intent, but it's
> surely not am absolute
> lack of intent.

You see, it quite literally is just that lack of
intent, because you have not yet formed an
intention to do one or the other (which gives
another of the plausible readings of {ainai}).
You can't intend to do something unless you have
formed that intention (I'm sure there is a
philosopher somewhere who would argue endlessly
against this point, but the broad outline of it
seems correct enough for present purposes).
Intention is a conscious act of will, in other
words, and so until you have made that effort you
don't have an intention.

> > Arj wants
> > either the first or second, presumably the
> first;
> > I took xorxes as wanting the fourth. But
> they
> > are all non-intent to do x.
>
> Well, yes, intent to not do x requires
> non-intent to do x,
> but it requires more than that.

Yes, it is one particular place within the
complement of intending to do x, as is intending
to do something (which happens to be)incompatible
with x and, of course, not having thought about x
at all.

> > The pattern argument is an iffy approach.
> There
> > are clear cases among UI of opposites, clear
> > cases (to me) of either {xnai} as "x to not"
> or
> > "x not to," cases where the relation to
> negation
> > is unclear, and cases of meanings at right
> angles
> > to any obvious axis (more or less what the
> "never
> > considered" version of {ainai} is). I am not
> > sure where the preponderance lies, but there
> is
> > no unanimity for any one pattern.
>
> Let's list them then, and compare. The more
> relevant
> ones for this are all in the "irrealis"
> section, and I have
> only 11 there (some may want to argue for
> removing
> or adding some, for example you mentioned "fear
> that..."
> recently, which is not there.)

I assumed you had alreeady made such a list as
part of preparing these sections (I guess you are
not doing all the VV's, but at least for your
sets). It may well be that — since I just
looked at some cases without thinking about what
sort of UI they were — the patterns are
different for different different classes (if so
that is wortha note somewhere as well). As for
"fear," the relevant one ("fear that") seems to
be just the negative (in the photo sense) version
of "despair": if I despair of x, I fear that not
x. If you think these critters need a closer look
than you have given them, I'll elaborate on that
point a bit in the survey.

> > > I don't see why {ai} should be the only one
> > > following that
> > > pattern. Just because it was oddly glossed
> as
> > > "rejection/refusal" in the ma'oste?
> >
> > Well, there is also the fact that it seems to
> > have been used that way by the majority of
> people
> > who used it at all.
>
> Yes, usage is one of the factors to take into
> considaration.
> (I don't consider the usage of {ai nai} to have
> been very
> significant, but not surprizingly it did tend
> to follow the
> keywords. I think I even used it in the Alice
> translation.)

So there you have arj's argument in a nutshell,
except for the relatively higher value he places
on tradition.

On 8/10/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/10/05, John E Clifford
> > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > The problem remains that "lack of intent" is
> > too
> > > vague for your present purpose: it can occur
> > in
> > > at least four different situations: intent
> > not
> > > to, intent to not,
> >
> > (I'm not sure my English is up to telling those
> > two appart,
> > what's the difference? Googling for "I intend
> > not to" and
> > "I intend to not", all I can figure out is a
> > difference in
> > register, formal/informal, but I can't really
> > find a difference
> > in meaning.)
> I am being a logician here so it is a scoping
> thing. "I intend to not do x" means that that is
> my intention without any further specification --
> I will resist doing x." "I intend to do not x"
> means that I intend to do something other than
> (and incompatible with) x at the time of
> opportunity for x.

That I understand, yes, but you did not address the issue,
you introduced a third form:

1) Intend not to do X
2) Intend to not do X
3) Intend to do not X

(3) is clearly different from (1) and (2), which is what you
explain, but the only difference I can see between (1) and
(2) is one of register.

> The problem with "non-intent" is
> that it has no real use (the law and related
> topics are really real, after all)

Did you mean "are not really real"? Otherwise, I don't follow.

...
> I assumed you had alreeady made such a list as
> part of preparing these sections (I guess you are
> not doing all the VV's, but at least for your
> sets).

I am doing all the VV's, yes. You can find the rest here:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Realis%20Attitudinals>

> It may well be that — since I just
> looked at some cases without thinking about what
> sort of UI they were — the patterns are
> different for different different classes (if so
> that is wortha note somewhere as well).

I will write some kind of summary of the irrealis later
today. In the end, anyone who is really interested in
finding patterns will have to do the work of looking
for them by themselves, because the classes are not
always obvious and clearcut.

> As for
> "fear," the relevant one ("fear that") seems to
> be just the negative (in the photo sense) version
> of "despair": if I despair of x, I fear that not
> x. If you think these critters need a closer look
> than you have given them, I'll elaborate on that
> point a bit in the survey.

All I'm saying is that "fear that..." is nowhere to be
found on the list of UIs. You are welcome to elaborate
on English expressions, but it would be more useful
if you somehow relate them to the Lojban system (if it
can be called that), since that's what we are defining
here.

> > Yes, usage is one of the factors to take into
> > considaration.
> > (I don't consider the usage of {ai nai} to have
> > been very
> > significant, but not surprizingly it did tend
> > to follow the
> > keywords. I think I even used it in the Alice
> > translation.)
>
> So there you have arj's argument in a nutshell,
> except for the relatively higher value he places
> on tradition.

Indeed. His point was crystal clear from the beginning.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/10/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On 8/10/05, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > The problem remains that "lack of intent"
> is
> > > too
> > > > vague for your present purpose: it can
> occur
> > > in
> > > > at least four different situations:
> intent
> > > not
> > > > to, intent to not,
> > >
> > > (I'm not sure my English is up to telling
> those
> > > two appart,
> > > what's the difference? Googling for "I
> intend
> > > not to" and
> > > "I intend to not", all I can figure out is
> a
> > > difference in
> > > register, formal/informal, but I can't
> really
> > > find a difference
> > > in meaning.)
> > I am being a logician here so it is a
> scoping
> > thing. "I intend to not do x" means that
> that is
> > my intention without any further
> specification --
> > I will resist doing x." "I intend to do not
> x"
> > means that I intend to do something other
> than
> > (and incompatible with) x at the time of
> > opportunity for x.
>
> That I understand, yes, but you did not address
> the issue,
> you introduced a third form:
>
> 1) Intend not to do X
> 2) Intend to not do X
> 3) Intend to do not X
>
> (3) is clearly different from (1) and (2),
> which is what you
> explain, but the only difference I can see
> between (1) and
> (2) is one of register.

A problem in using short forms like "intend not
to" and "intend to not," instead of the fuller
forms. I agree that my "intend not to" might be
either 1 or 2 (as usual, someone could problably
find differences, but I don't see them for the
moment — tone aside). "intend to not" was meant
to be your 3.
>
> > The problem with "non-intent" is
> > that it has no real use (the law and related
> > topics are really real, after all)
>
> Did you mean "are not really real"?

Yes.

Otherwise,
> I don't follow.
>
>
> ...
> > I assumed you had already made such a list
> as
> > part of preparing these sections (I guess you
> are
> > not doing all the VV's, but at least for your
> > sets).
>
> I am doing all the VV's, yes. You can find the
> rest here:
>
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Realis%20Attitudinals>
>
> > It may well be that — since I just
> > looked at some cases without thinking about
> what
> > sort of UI they were — the patterns are
> > different for different different classes (if
> so
> > that is worth a note somewhere as well).
>
> I will write some kind of summary of the
> irrealis later
> today. In the end, anyone who is really
> interested in
> finding patterns will have to do the work of
> looking
> for them by themselves, because the classes are
> not
> always obvious and clearcut.
>
> > As for
> > "fear," the relevant one ("fear that") seems
> to
> > be just the negative (in the photo sense)
> version
> > of "despair": if I despair of x, I fear that
> not
> > x. If you think these critters need a closer
> look
> > than you have given them, I'll elaborate on
> that
> > point a bit in the survey.
>
> All I'm saying is that "fear that..." is
> nowhere to be
> found on the list of UIs. You are welcome to
> elaborate
> on English expressions, but it would be more
> useful
> if you somehow relate them to the Lojban system
> (if it
> can be called that), since that's what we are
> defining
> here.

As far as I can figure out, "hope that x" is
appropriate for cases where 1) x is a living
possibility (in the speaker's mind, at least) 2)
the speaker has a positive attitude toward x
(maybe even desires that it occur, more than just
approving of it) 3) its coming to be or not is
outside his control (in his opinion again) 4) it
is not clearly the most likely possibility for
the occasion in question (in his opinion yet
again). "despair" agrees with "hope" in 2 and 3
at least (addingg perhaps in 2 that the speaker
has a negative attitude — even fear of — toward
x not occurring or at least some particular --
and likely — alternative), but in place of 4 we
have that x is the least likely of viable
possibilities or maybe not even viable at all
anymore (so 1 may go as well). "fear that x"
agrees with "hope" on 1 and 3 but has a negative
attitude (even desires not) for 2 and has it the
most likely possibility in 4. So the
interrelations here are more complex than can be
dealt with simply by negating some chunk the
surface formula: "despair" is the extreme form of
"hope" in that x need be not only less than most
likely (and this is the least certain part of
"hope") but actually the least likely, even not
viable. It may also have the stronger element in
the speaker's attitude) "fear" seems to be more
than "hope that not x" for a number of reasons:
not-x being most likely does not follow from x
being less than most likely nor conversely,
indeed not-x is too indeterminate to be of much
use here, where the fear is of a prrticular thing
(hope that x as fear that not-x works a bit
better but still misses the part about positive
attitudes: negative toward x does not gurantee
positive toward not-x). And of course, "not hope
that", "noot despair of" and "not feart that"
don't get us anywhere at all toward any of the
other, though "hope" and "fear" as polar
opposites is not too bad (within the context of
viable alternatives outside one's control). I do
think it is the case that if a despairs of x then
a fears that not-x, except that range of not-x is
usually more specific. So what does this say
about {a'o}? On the basis of {nai} giving the
opposite, {ao'nai} should be "fear that"
propbably, but none of this does much about the
affective aspects of these attitudes, which are
quite different and not obviously related in any
way that could be called negation. Ineed, it is
mainly the affect tht separates hope from
despair, probably what coverts — in the
speaker's mind — from "not most likely to "least
likely": once you get, gloomy it spreads. So, as
affects, the two are opposite and it could be
argued that affects are what attitudinals are all
about.

> > > Yes, usage is one of the factors to take
> into
> > > considaration.
> > > (I don't consider the usage of {ai nai} to
> have
> > > been very
> > > significant, but not surprizingly it did
> tend
> > > to follow the
> > > keywords. I think I even used it in the
> Alice
> > > translation.)
> >
> > So there you have arj's argument in a
> nutshell,
> > except for the relatively higher value he
> places
> > on tradition.
>
> Indeed. His point was crystal clear from the
> beginning.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>

We can sort the "irrealis" attitudinals broadly into three
classes:

a-series: ai, au, a'o, ei ("ei" is an honorary member here)
e-series: e'a, e'e, e'i ,e'o, e'u
i-series: ia, ie

The a-series is used to express the attitude of the speaker
towards a certain situation.

The e-series is used to express the attitude of the speaker
towards a certain situation to be brought about by the
audience or, eventually, by a third party.

The i-series is used to indicate how the speaker evaluates
a proposition in regards to its correspondence with reality.

{au} and {a'o} both indicate a situation that the speaker would
find desirable. The difference is that with {au} the speaker
judges the situation to be impossible (i.e. incompatible with
how things really are) or at least extremely unlikely, whereas
with {a'o} it is judged to be possible and even likely (i.e.
compatible with how things really are, and the speaker is
optimistic), but still uncertain, for if the speaker knew that
the world agreed with their desideratum they would express
hapiness (ui) or pleasure (oinai) rather than hope.

{aunai} and {a'onai} both indicate a situation that the speaker
would find undesirable. The difference is that with {aunai} the
speaker judges the situation to be relatively unlikely, or at
least avoidable, whereas with {a'onai} it is judged to be quite
likely (i.e. the speaker is pessimistic), but still uncertain, for if
the speaker knew for sure that the world agreed with the
undesirable situation they would express unhappiness (uinai)
or complaint (oi) rather than despair.

{aucu'i} (and eventually {a'ocu'i}) indicates a situation that the
speaker finds neither desirable nor undesirable. Since the
speaker is apathetic to the situation, the relative likelihood
loses relevance and perhaps that's why {a'ocu'i} is not even
glossed, but still {aucu'i} could be used for something
considered more unlikely and {a'ocu'i} for something more
likely. When the world agrees with the indifferent situation
the indifference could be expressed as (uicu'i) or (oicu'i)
(neither has been glossed).

{ei} indicates that the speaker judges the situation as described
to be how the world "ought to be". There is no indication as
to whether the speaker considers the world to actually be
that way or not, most often the world will not be as it ought to,
or there would be no need to point out the discrepancy, but
it's also possible to say "this is how it is, and that's just how
it ought to be too"; and there is no indication about what criteria
are used to make the judjement (moral, spiritual, social,
physical, etc. this can probably be indicated with a modifier.)

{einai} indicates that the speaker does not take the situation
as described to be how the world "ought to be". There is no
indication as to whether the speaker considers the world
to actually be thus or not, most often however the world *will*
be that way, or there would be no need to point out that there
is no obligation for it to be that way, but it's also possible to
say "this is not how it is, and there's no need for it to be that
way either".

{ai} indicates a situation that the speakers takes to be the
goal or purpose of their actions. As with {ei}, the situation
may or may not coincide with actuality: it's a target which
may be hit or missed.

{ainai} indicates a situation that the speakers takes not to be
the goal or purpose of their actions. The situation may or
may not coincide with actuality: it is just not a target. In many
cases it *will* coincide with actuality, or at least appear to,
or there would be no reason to bring it up.

{aicu'i} indicates a situation that the speaker contemplates
as a goal or purpose of their actions. The situation
may or may not coincide with actuality: it's just not clear
to the speaker whether it is the target or not.

---

With the e-series, the speaker makes a transfer of some
kind to the audience:

e'a: the speaker grants permission to the audience
e'e: the speaker gives encouragement to the audience
e'i: the speaker imposes a command to the audience
e'o: the speaker poses a request to the audience
e'u: the speaker offers a suggestion to the audience

The transference language may be metaphorical
but I think it shows that the speaker is placing the
onus for bringing the situation about on the audience
(or eventually a third party). These can all be
accompanied with {ko}, or rather, using {ko} by itself
could replace any of these, losing the specific attitude
of the speaker with respect to the action.

e'anai: the speaker imposes a prohibition to the audience
e'enai: the speaker throws discouragement to the audience
e'inai: the speaker gives freedom to the audience
e'onai: the speaker grants a favor to the audience
e'unai: the speaker proffers a warning to the audience

{e'a} and {e'i} can be seen as duals, in the same way
that "may" and "must" are duals. The difference between
{e'a} (permission) and {e'inai} (unconstrain) is the difference
between "may" and "need not".

---

{ia} and {ie} are used to indicate that the speaker judges
the situation described to correspond with reality. The
difference between them is that with {ia} the speaker brings
up the situation in question themselves, whereas with {ie}
the speaker is judging a situation brough up by someone
else.

{ianai} and {ienai} are used to indicate that the speaker judges
the situation described to not correspond with reality.

{iacu'i} and {iecu'i} are used to indicate that the speaker
cannot or will not make a definite judgement as to whether
the situation described corresponds with reality or not.

Notice that {ia} and {ie} could be taken to constitute
assertions, because the speaker is indicating that the
proposition in question does properly describe reality
according to them, but I would say that the proposition
is not really asserted in those cases, it is just the attitude
of the speaker towards the proposition that is expressed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/11/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
> other, though "hope" and "fear" as polar
> opposites is not too bad (within the context of
> viable alternatives outside one's control).

I have added "used to express fear that the situation
ensues" for {a'onai}. I always took the keyword "despair"
in the sense of "despair that..." rather than "despair of...",
which is what you describe. "Despair that..." fits with
"fear that..." in that both refer to situations that the
speaker finds undesirable.

> So what does this say
> about {a'o}? On the basis of {nai} giving the
> opposite, {ao'nai} should be "fear that"
> propbably,

Yes, I agree.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/11/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ...
> > other, though "hope" and "fear" as polar
> > opposites is not too bad (within the context
> of
> > viable alternatives outside one's control).
>
> I have added "used to express fear that the
> situation
> ensues" for {a'onai}. I always took the keyword
> "despair"
> in the sense of "despair that..." rather than
> "despair of...",
> which is what you describe. "Despair that..."
> fits with
> "fear that..." in that both refer to situations
> that the
> speaker finds undesirable.

I don't think I have "despair that" in my
idiolect. I was worried about the different form
from "hope that" and "fear that" but had nothing
to move to in that direction with "despair."
And it seems I am not alone in this, the OED has
only a couple of citations for "despair that" and
they are old (pre18th century). As for despair
in any case referring to an event that the the
speaker finds undesireable, the event mentioned
is always (I may have missed a case, though the
OED does not give a definition to fit) a
desirable one and despair is the loss of hope
that it will occur. That is "despair that/of x"
means that x is desired, among other things.
Whereas, in "fear that x" x is undesirable. The
bad thing in despair is that what is mentioned
won't happen, in fear it is that it will.

On 8/11/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I don't think I have "despair that" in my
> idiolect. I was worried about the different form
> from "hope that" and "fear that" but had nothing
> to move to in that direction with "despair."
> And it seems I am not alone in this, the OED has
> only a couple of citations for "despair that" and
> they are old (pre18th century).

These might be more current (from the first page
of "I despair that" by Google):

Today, I despair that too many of us have already
decided to surrender.

I despair that I feel like a stranger in my own land --
as though I don't belong — because the values I hold
dear are so marginalized.

I despair that I had to queue five hours for my ticket;
I despair that a large proportion of the fans who were
there couldn't be bothered to cheer on the...

Sometimes I despair that I'm fighting on a false front.

I despair that very few members of the American
community will follow suit.

I despair that this stupid Western trend is becoming
popular in Japan.

At times I despair that misery truly is the human
condition, and we immortals are certainly not spared
our immortal share of it.

I despair that things will never change.

> As for despair
> in any case referring to an event that the the
> speaker finds undesireable, the event mentioned
> is always (I may have missed a case, though the
> OED does not give a definition to fit) a
> desirable one and despair is the loss of hope
> that it will occur.

That doesn't seem to agree with current usage.

> That is "despair that/of x"
> means that x is desired, among other things.
> Whereas, in "fear that x" x is undesirable. The
> bad thing in despair is that what is mentioned
> won't happen, in fear it is that it will.

In the examples above the x of "I despair that x"
is undesirable for the speaker.

I did find one where x was desirable:

"I despair that I shall ever win to the far end of that
love, there are so many plies in it."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> We can sort the "irrealis" attitudinals broadly
> into three
> classes:
>
> a-series: ai, au, a'o, ei ("ei" is an honorary
> member here)
> e-series: e'a, e'e, e'i ,e'o, e'u
> i-series: ia, ie
>
> The a-series is used to express the attitude of
> the speaker
> towards a certain situation.

I am not even sure what this means, but maybe its
very unclarity helps for the purpose of tying up
one bundle. But it doesn't seem to me to do a
good job even then. Of course, part of the
problem is that strange "attitude" which means
God knows what, if anything.

> The e-series is used to express the attitude of
> the speaker
> towards a certain situation to be brought about
> by the
> audience or, eventually, by a third party.
>
> The i-series is used to indicate how the
> speaker evaluates
> a proposition in regards to its correspondence
> with reality.

These others are better so I take your remarks on
a as being an attempt to cover the garbage
category.
> {au} and {a'o} both indicate a situation that
> the speaker would
> find desirable. The difference is that with
> {au} the speaker
> judges the situation to be impossible (i.e.
> incompatible with
> how things really are) or at least extremely
> unlikely,
Why so? Can't he desire something without also
judging that it is hard to get. He may very well
(and often does) desire something without
(before) considering whether he can get it. I
don't see how this is going to help with {aunai}
as "reluctance" (not a very meaningful word off
hand anyhow). To be sure, I am not clear how this
is something that can be expressed, but that is
by now a generic worry in this list.

whereas
> with {a'o} it is judged to be possible and even
> likely (i.e.
> compatible with how things really are, and the
> speaker is
> optimistic), but still uncertain, for if the
> speaker knew that
> the world agreed with their desideratum they
> would express
> hapiness (ui) or pleasure (oinai) rather than
> hope.

Well, surely not hope then, but maybe not joy yet
either, waiting for it to come to pass before he
throws the party.

> {aunai} and {a'onai} both indicate a situation
> that the speaker
> would find undesirable.

Well, the sentence with the {a'onai} actually
mentions (if "despair" is the right word) a
desirable event — what is undesirable is that it
is very unlikely to occur.

The difference is that
> with {aunai} the
> speaker judges the situation to be relatively
> unlikely, or at
> least avoidable,

I don't see this (indeed, I don't see likelihood
in {au} at all, but then I still can't deal with
"reluctance," whichseems to be about will not
about desire.

whereas with {a'onai}
it is
> judged to be quite
> likely (i.e. the speaker is pessimistic), but
> still uncertain, for if
> the speaker knew for sure that the world agreed
> with the
> undesirable situation they would express
> unhappiness (uinai)
> or complaint (oi) rather than despair.

See above.

> {aucu'i} (and eventually {a'ocu'i}) indicates a
> situation that the
> speaker finds neither desirable nor
> undesirable. Since the
> speaker is apathetic to the situation, the
> relative likelihood
> loses relevance
if it every had any

and perhaps that's why
> {a'ocu'i} is not even
> glossed, but still {aucu'i} could be used for
> something
> considered more unlikely and {a'ocu'i} for
> something more
> likely.

This might, I suppose, be right for {a'o}, since
the difference (assuming "despair" is right) is
just likelihood, but then the {cu'i} form would
have to be about things just balance — as likely
as not.

When the world agrees with the
> indifferent situation
> the indifference could be expressed as (uicu'i)
> or (oicu'i)
> (neither has been glossed).
>
> {ei} indicates that the speaker judges the
> situation as described
> to be how the world "ought to be". There is no
> indication as
> to whether the speaker considers the world to
> actually be
> that way or not, most often the world will not
> be as it ought to,
> or there would be no need to point out the
> discrepancy, but
> it's also possible to say "this is how it is,
> and that's just how
> it ought to be too"; and there is no indication
> about what criteria
> are used to make the judjement (moral,
> spiritual, social,
> physical, etc. this can probably be indicated
> with a modifier.)

Nice. I was taking it as laying down an ob --
along the lines of {e'a} — which got me into
trouble precisely with {e'a}

> {einai} indicates that the speaker does not
> take the situation
> as described to be how the world "ought to be".
> There is no
> indication as to whether the speaker considers
> the world
> to actually be thus or not, most often however
> the world *will*
> be that way, or there would be no need to point
> out that there
> is no obligation for it to be that way, but
> it's also possible to
> say "this is not how it is, and there's no need
> for it to be that
> way either".

Again, "freedom" sounds like something to do with
the will rather than judgment. I am not sure
what to make of this as a judgment; is what you
are doing making {einai} be for things that are
not covered by whatever the person is judging
from? Rather than just things which are in the
area but not given any particular force.

> {ai} indicates a situation that the speakers
> takes to be the
> goal or purpose of their actions. As with {ei},
> the situation
> may or may not coincide with actuality: it's a
> target which
> may be hit or missed.

Here attitude is pretty hopeless. This seems
pretty clearly about will and {ai x} indicates
the intention to bring about x. It can only be
used when x is not the case (so far as the
speaker knows, etc.)

> {ainai} indicates a situation that the speakers
> takes not to be
> the goal or purpose of their actions. The
> situation may or
> may not coincide with actuality: it is just not
> a target. In many
> cases it *will* coincide with actuality, or at
> least appear to,
> or there would be no reason to bring it up.

I liked "has not considered" better — clearer
anyhow, even if you decide it misses the exact
place. I get no very clear idea of what this
means — in particular hwo it differs from
deciding to go for not-x.

> {aicu'i} indicates a situation that the speaker
> contemplates
> as a goal or purpose of their actions.

But has not yet decided whether to go for it or
not.

The
> situation
> may or may not coincide with actuality: it's
> just not clear
> to the speaker whether it is the target or not.

It only makes sense if the event is not present
(so far as the speaker believes)
> ----
>
> With the e-series, the speaker makes a transfer
> of some
> kind to the audience:
>
> e'a: the speaker grants permission to the
> audience
> e'e: the speaker gives encouragement to the
> audience
> e'i: the speaker imposes a command to the
> audience
> e'o: the speaker poses a request to the
> audience
> e'u: the speaker offers a suggestion to the
> audience

This makes for a pretty nice packet, laying out
the common directive uses of language. While th
interactions among them may be interesting, we
don't need them here. However, most of these,
while, they make a lot more sense, are not
obviously what the standard list gives.
Admittedly, the standard list in virtually
unintelligible here and the moves seem to be in
the right direction, but I can see a lot of
people — if anyone has ever used any of these
confidently — being up in arms about the
changes.

> The transference language may be metaphorical
> but I think it shows that the speaker is
> placing the
> onus for bringing the situation about on the
> audience
> (or eventually a third party). These can all be
>
> accompanied with {ko}, or rather, using {ko} by
> itself
> could replace any of these, losing the specific
> attitude
> of the speaker with respect to the action.
>
> e'anai: the speaker imposes a prohibition to
> the audience
> e'enai: the speaker throws discouragement to
> the audience
> e'inai: the speaker gives freedom to the
> audience

This one I don't understand. Releases from a
command or some other form of ob? How is it
different from a permission?

> e'onai: the speaker grants a favor to the
> audience
Nice opposition! Certainly better than "negative
request"

> e'unai: the speaker proffers a warning to the
> audience

Is a warning different from a suggestion that
not. Probably, but it isn the opposite of a
suggestion either.

> {e'a} and {e'i} can be seen as duals, in the
> same way
> that "may" and "must" are duals. The difference
> between
> {e'a} (permission) and {e'inai} (unconstrain)
> is the difference
> between "may" and "need not".

I am not sure what that difference is: "may x"
and "may not-x"? ----
>
> {ia} and {ie} are used to indicate that the
> speaker judges
> the situation described to correspond with
> reality. The
> difference between them is that with {ia} the
> speaker brings
> up the situation in question themselves,
> whereas with {ie}
> the speaker is judging a situation brough up by
> someone
> else.

I would take {ie} to be a performative not a
judgment. But then I tend to think of agreement
and disagreement as about proposals, not about
claims, responses to some {e'V} or other. {ia} on
the other hand is about facts and works as well
if someone else makes the claim as if I do. {ie}
on the other hand has nothing to do with reality
but will intentions or so.

<<{ianai} and {ienai} are used to indicate that
the speaker judges
the situation described to not correspond with
reality.

{iacu'i} and {iecu'i} are used to indicate that
the speaker
cannot or will not make a definite judgement as
to whether
the situation described corresponds with reality
or not.

Notice that {ia} and {ie} could be taken to
constitute
assertions, because the speaker is indicating
that the
proposition in question does properly describe
reality
according to them, but I would say that the
proposition
is not really asserted in those cases, it is just
the attitude
of the speaker towards the proposition that is
expressed.

I would agree for {ie} but not for {ia}, since
{ia} is often used as an intensive, to point to
external factors making the claim in need of stressing.

On 8/11/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > {au} and {a'o} both indicate a situation that
> > the speaker would
> > find desirable. The difference is that with
> > {au} the speaker
> > judges the situation to be impossible (i.e.
> > incompatible with
> > how things really are) or at least extremely
> > unlikely,
>
> Why so?

That's simply how I'm defining it. Similar to the
"Oh that x were the case" in English.

> Can't he desire something without also
> judging that it is hard to get.

That would be {a'o}.

> He may very well
> (and often does) desire something without
> (before) considering whether he can get it.

For example? (I hope by "something" here you don't
mean an object but rather that a situation obtain.

> > whereas
> > with {a'o} it is judged to be possible and even
> > likely (i.e.
> > compatible with how things really are, and the
> > speaker is
> > optimistic), but still uncertain, for if the
> > speaker knew that
> > the world agreed with their desideratum they
> > would express
> > hapiness (ui) or pleasure (oinai) rather than
> > hope.
>
> Well, surely not hope then, but maybe not joy yet
> either, waiting for it to come to pass before he
> throws the party.

For example? I have no problem with something like:

ui la djan ba vitke ca le bavlamdei
Yipee! John will visit tomorrow!

> > {aunai} and {a'onai} both indicate a situation
> > that the speaker
> > would find undesirable.
>
> Well, the sentence with the {a'onai} actually
> mentions (if "despair" is the right word) a
> desirable event — what is undesirable is that it
> is very unlikely to occur.

Which sentence? The one I have is:

.a'o nai ro da ca se cirko
Everything will be lost now.

which mentions an undesirable event.

> > but still {aucu'i} could be used for
> > something
> > considered more unlikely and {a'ocu'i} for
> > something more
> > likely.
>
> This might, I suppose, be right for {a'o}, since
> the difference (assuming "despair" is right) is
> just likelihood, but then the {cu'i} form would
> have to be about things just balance — as likely
> as not.

{a'o} is the more likely: {a'o} desirable/ {a'onai} undesirable
{au} is the more unlikely: {au} desirable / {aunai} undesirable

{cu'i} is neither desirable nor undesirable in both cases..

> I am not sure
> what to make of this as a judgment; is what you
> are doing making {einai} be for things that are
> not covered by whatever the person is judging
> from? Rather than just things which are in the
> area but not given any particular force.

I don't understand the question. I'm proposing that
{einai} indicates that the situation is not (perhaps
against appearances) how things need to be. The
example is:

.ei nai do tolnurcni
You don't have to feel threatened.

i.e. there is no (moral, physical, social, whatever) law
that says that you ought to feel threatened.

> > {ainai} indicates a situation that the speakers
> > takes not to be
> > the goal or purpose of their actions. The
> > situation may or
> > may not coincide with actuality: it is just not
> > a target. In many
> > cases it *will* coincide with actuality, or at
> > least appear to,
> > or there would be no reason to bring it up.
>
> I liked "has not considered" better — clearer
> anyhow, even if you decide it misses the exact
> place. I get no very clear idea of what this
> means — in particular hwo it differs from
> deciding to go for not-x.

One example is:

.ai nai do pu se xrani
I didn't mean for you to get hurt.

Your getting hurt was not the target of my actions, but
that doesn't mean that I ever decided to go for you not
getting hurt.

> > e'a: the speaker grants permission to the
> > audience
> > e'e: the speaker gives encouragement to the
> > audience
> > e'i: the speaker imposes a command to the
> > audience
> > e'o: the speaker poses a request to the
> > audience
> > e'u: the speaker offers a suggestion to the
> > audience
>
> This makes for a pretty nice packet, laying out
> the common directive uses of language. While th
> interactions among them may be interesting, we
> don't need them here. However, most of these,
> while, they make a lot more sense, are not
> obviously what the standard list gives.

{e'e} and {e'i} in particular, which is not really so'e
but it is so'o, yes.

> Admittedly, the standard list in virtually
> unintelligible here and the moves seem to be in
> the right direction, but I can see a lot of
> people — if anyone has ever used any of these
> confidently — being up in arms about the
> changes.

Indeed.

> > e'inai: the speaker gives freedom to the
> > audience
>
> This one I don't understand. Releases from a
> command or some other form of ob? How is it
> different from a permission?

It's a subtle difference. As I say below, similar to the
difference between "you may" and "you need not".

> I am not sure what that difference is: "may x"
> and "may not-x"? ----

Yes.

> I would take {ie} to be a performative not a
> judgment.

Well, usage has consistently been as in {ie go'i}
"I agree with that", as far as I can tell.

> But then I tend to think of agreement
> and disagreement as about proposals, not about
> claims, responses to some {e'V} or other.

That would probably fit {vi'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/11/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think I have "despair that" in my
> > idiolect. I was worried about the different
> form
> > from "hope that" and "fear that" but had
> nothing
> > to move to in that direction with "despair."
> > And it seems I am not alone in this, the OED
> has
> > only a couple of citations for "despair that"
> and
> > they are old (pre18th century).
>
> These might be more current (from the first
> page
> of "I despair that" by Google):
>
> Today, I despair that too many of us have
> already
> decided to surrender.
>
> I despair that I feel like a stranger in my own
> land --
> as though I don't belong — because the values
> I hold
> dear are so marginalized.
>
> I despair that I had to queue five hours for my
> ticket;
> I despair that a large proportion of the fans
> who were
> there couldn't be bothered to cheer on the...
>
> Sometimes I despair that I'm fighting on a
> false front.
>
> I despair that very few members of the American
>
> community will follow suit.
>
> I despair that this stupid Western trend is
> becoming
> popular in Japan.
>
> At times I despair that misery truly is the
> human
> condition, and we immortals are certainly not
> spared
> our immortal share of it.
>
> I despair that things will never change.

Well, this is a new usage (and I dread to think
how it came about — it is related to the old in
a peculiar way: despair that x = despair of
not-x). It has not made it into any dictionary I
could find. But, yes, it does offer just the
sort of thing you want: undesirable event likely
to occur (maybe not so strongly as fear that --
or maybe more so insofar as the hope lost carries
over from the older form, which is, happily,
still current). Given that the creators of the
original word list often use what I (and the
dictionaries) think of as nonstandard (indeed,
substandard) usage ("disinterest" elsewhere in
the list, the inability to distinguish between
"Don" and "dawn" and so on) I suppose this is
what they ahd in mind — though a usage that is
over twenty years old must have made it into some
dictionary or other (but my newest dictionary is
from the mid 90s). In any case, I suppose that
the affect and physiology of "despair that" is
like that of "despair of" and hence that "fear
that" (with a different affect and physiology)
is not an exact substitute. I suggest "dread"
for the key word — it is also wroing affectively
(and physiologically) but it is right logically
(actually better than "fear" since it has the
relevant future orientation) and does not
interfere with other sets.
>
> > As for despair
> > in any case referring to an event that the
> the
> > speaker finds undesireable, the event
> mentioned
> > is always (I may have missed a case, though
> the
> > OED does not give a definition to fit) a
> > desirable one and despair is the loss of hope
> > that it will occur.
>
> That doesn't seem to agree with current usage.
Well, I see no evidece that the old usage has
disappeared or event decreased in frequency. The
new seems merely added on. (And, I suspect, there
are some mixed cases, with "despair that" being
used for "despair of".) Hmmm, "despair that" is
roughly the dual of "hope that," affect and
physiology aside.

> > That is "despair that/of x"
> > means that x is desired, among other things.
> > Whereas, in "fear that x" x is undesirable.
> The
> > bad thing in despair is that what is
> mentioned
> > won't happen, in fear it is that it will.
>
> In the examples above the x of "I despair that
> x"
> is undesirable for the speaker.
>
> I did find one where x was desirable:
>
> "I despair that I shall ever win to the far end
> of that
> love, there are so many plies in it."

Ahah, a mixed case as predicted.

---

> On 8/11/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > {au} and {a'o} both indicate a situation
> that
> > > the speaker would
> > > find desirable. The difference is that with
> > > {au} the speaker
> > > judges the situation to be impossible (i.e.
> > > incompatible with
> > > how things really are) or at least
> extremely
> > > unlikely,
> >
> > Why so?
>
> That's simply how I'm defining it. Similar to
> the
> "Oh that x were the case" in English.

OK, but I don't see that that is particularly
what is wanted here. I mean, the old list and
usage must count for something and this does not
seem to be what those pointed to. On the other
hand, we do need something like that and nothing
else seems to do it efficiently.

> > Can't he desire something without also
> > judging that it is hard to get.
>
> That would be {a'o}.

Hope is very different from desire logically and
affectively. One can desire something quite
independently of any judgment about how (or
whether) it can be obtained.

> > He may very well
> > (and often does) desire something without
> > (before) considering whether he can get it.
>
> For example? (I hope by "something" here you
> don't
> mean an object but rather that a situation
> obtain.

In this context, yes (I would argue that we
always want a state of affairs, but that is
contentious). I want the next President to be a
Democrat but I have no idea what the likelihood
of that is — it being three years until the
election and all. Also — against "hope" — it
is not yet essentially out of my control — I can
at least make some contribution toward it.

> > > whereas
> > > with {a'o} it is judged to be possible and
> even
> > > likely (i.e.
> > > compatible with how things really are, and
> the
> > > speaker is
> > > optimistic), but still uncertain, for if
> the
> > > speaker knew that
> > > the world agreed with their desideratum
> they
> > > would express
> > > hapiness (ui) or pleasure (oinai) rather
> than
> > > hope.
> >
> > Well, surely not hope then, but maybe not joy
> yet
> > either, waiting for it to come to pass before
> he
> > throws the party.
>
> For example? I have no problem with something
> like:
>
> ui la djan ba vitke ca le bavlamdei
> Yipee! John will visit tomorrow!

But that is joy in the expectation, not in the
event. Still, I don't expect that Lojban will
make the distinction, so I'll let that one pass.

> > > {aunai} and {a'onai} both indicate a
> situation
> > > that the speaker
> > > would find undesirable.
> >
> > Well, the sentence with the {a'onai} actually
> > mentions (if "despair" is the right word) a
> > desirable event — what is undesirable is
> that it
> > is very unlikely to occur.
>
> Which sentence? The one I have is:
>
> .a'o nai ro da ca se cirko
> Everything will be lost now.
>
> which mentions an undesirable event.

This is the ambiguity of unextended "desire;" I
am reading it in the usual sense "despair of",
you in the rising one "despair that" and it gives
exactly opposite results with respect to the
framing sentence.

> > > but still {aucu'i} could be used for
> > > something
> > > considered more unlikely and {a'ocu'i} for
> > > something more
> > > likely.
> >
> > This might, I suppose, be right for {a'o},
> since
> > the difference (assuming "despair" is right)
> is
> > just likelihood, but then the {cu'i} form
> would
> > have to be about things just balance — as
> likely
> > as not.
>
> {a'o} is the more likely: {a'o} desirable/
> {a'onai} undesirable
> {au} is the more unlikely: {au} desirable /
> {aunai} undesirable
>
> {cu'i} is neither desirable nor undesirable in
> both cases..

Surely the likelihood is a noncentral part of the
notion, if it plays a role in {au} at all (it is
definitely secondary in "hope" and "dread" --
though less in the latter than the former).

>
> > I am not sure
> > what to make of this as a judgment; is what
> you
> > are doing making {einai} be for things that
> are
> > not covered by whatever the person is judging
> > from? Rather than just things which are in
> the
> > area but not given any particular force.
>
> I don't understand the question.

In most cases (moral, legal, etc.) there are
things that fall outside the scope of the rules
(the law and which fork to use, for example) and
there are also matters inside the scope that are
not decided (cell phones while driving was until
about a year ago, and still is in most
jurisdictions — including Missouri, alas). So,
is {einai} about the first (outside the scope of
the rules) or the second (not fixed within the
rules)?

I'm proposing
> that
> {einai} indicates that the situation is not
> (perhaps
> against appearances) how things need to be. The
> example is:
>
> .ei nai do tolnurcni
> You don't have to feel threatened.
>
> i.e. there is no (moral, physical, social,
> whatever) law
> that says that you ought to feel threatened.

This is ambiguous in the way mentioned above. It
is also rather strange, since I can't imagine
what sort of law (in this sense) would require
that. At best I would imagine this comes under
a psychological "law" (in that other sense) and
then there very likely is such a law: that in a
certain situation (like this one) a person
(perhaps further specified) feels threatened. Of
course, that doesn't usually generate an "ought,"
though it might, as might further facts about
the situation (that someone is threatening you,
for example). I suppose the situation is such
that no one is threatening you nor in a position
to actually do you harm even though they might be
expected to want to do so. Of course, if this is
literally feeling threatened (a form of fear)
none of this is really very meaningful. Still, it
is reassuring, if not very literally accurate.
The main question is whether it can be taken as a
reasonable reading of "freedom" (in this context,
as you have developed it, obviously the wrong
word). I suppose it means free of necessity in
either direction, stressing the most helpful one
in each case (there is presumably no need not to
feel threatened either, but that doesn't help
here, where reassurance is called for). While it
is unclear what the original meant, this is
pretty clearly a change, even if a needed one.

> > > {ainai} indicates a situation that the
> speakers
> > > takes not to be
> > > the goal or purpose of their actions. The
> > > situation may or
> > > may not coincide with actuality: it is just
> not
> > > a target. In many
> > > cases it *will* coincide with actuality, or
> at
> > > least appear to,
> > > or there would be no reason to bring it up.
> >
> > I liked "has not considered" better --
> clearer
> > anyhow, even if you decide it misses the
> exact
> > place. I get no very clear idea of what this
> > means — in particular hwo it differs from
> > deciding to go for not-x.
>
> One example is:
>
> .ai nai do pu se xrani
> I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
>
> Your getting hurt was not the target of my
> actions, but
> that doesn't mean that I ever decided to go for
> you not
> getting hurt.

As I have said of this example before, it does
not fit the pattern here at all, being factual
rather than attitudinal. If these are irrealis,
then they presumably don't deal with fait
accompli even negatively. This is clearly a
report of a past intention, not an expression of
a present one. It may be some sort of UI, but
not this one — if the patterns mean anything at
all (which there is some evidence they don't, of
course).
>
> > > e'a: the speaker grants permission to the
> > > audience
> > > e'e: the speaker gives encouragement to the
> > > audience
> > > e'i: the speaker imposes a command to the
> > > audience
> > > e'o: the speaker poses a request to the
> > > audience
> > > e'u: the speaker offers a suggestion to the
> > > audience
> >
> > This makes for a pretty nice packet, laying
> out
> > the common directive uses of language. While
> th
> > interactions among them may be interesting,
> we
> > don't need them here. However, most of
> these,
> > while they make a lot more sense, are not
> > obviously what the standard list gives.
>
> {e'e} and {e'i} in particular, which is not
> really so'e
> but it is so'o, yes.

Huh?! what do most and several have to do with
these items on either reading? The pair mentioned
are the most obviously deviant (they may not be
at all, given the incomprehensibity of the
originals, but they sure look different at first
glance).

> > Admittedly, the standard list in virtually
> > unintelligible here and the moves seem to be
> in
> > the right direction, but I can see a lot of
> > people — if anyone has ever used any of
> these
> > confidently — being up in arms about the
> > changes.
>
message truncated
<<Indeed.

> > e'inai: the speaker gives freedom to the
> > audience
>
> This one I don't understand. Releases from a
> command or some other form of ob? How is it
> different from a permission?

It's a subtle difference. As I say below, similar
to the
difference between "you may" and "you need
not".>>

"You need not do x" amounts to "you may do not-x"
(oddly, I admit), but that doesn't seem to be the
difference involved here.

<<> I am not sure what that difference is: "may
x"
> and "may not-x"? ----

Yes.>>
I need to see some example where this works
itself out; at present it does not look to be
what you are saying.

<<> I would take {ie} to be a performative not a
> judgment.

Well, usage has consistently been as in {ie go'i}
"I agree with that", as far as I can tell.>>
This hardly helps if what is {go'i}d is {e'u x}
example. Otherwise, how does {i'e go'i} differ
from {ia go'i}, which seems also to occur?

<<> But then I tend to think of agreement
> and disagreement as about proposals, not about
> claims, responses to some {e'V} or other.

That would probably fit {vi'o}.>>

Well, at most in the case where what is given is
a command; when negotiation is a possibility
(which it is even with some command forms) then
agreement is different from compliance (logically
and affectively)

On 8/12/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, this is a new usage (and I dread to think
> how it came about — it is related to the old in
> a peculiar way: despair that x = despair of
> not-x).

It's not an unnatural change though, I think this kind
of polarity shifts is not all that rare with words that
have a negative sense in them. It's interesting that
none of the examples is the least bit ambiguous.
I suspect this might be related to the loss of the
subjunctive in English. "I despair that x" with a
desirable (and unlikely, uncertain) x requires x to be
in the subjunctive, whereas with an undesirable
(and likely or certain) x the indicative will do just fine.
Almost all the examples with desirable x's that I
find contain "ever" as a subjunctive marker:

I despair that there ever will be an end to it all.

I despair that Microsoft will ever again play the
part they so badly need to play in our industry:

Sometimes I despair that I shall ever read the
books I want to read

> It has not made it into any dictionary I
> could find. But, yes, it does offer just the
> sort of thing you want: undesirable event likely
> to occur (maybe not so strongly as fear that --
> or maybe more so insofar as the hope lost carries
> over from the older form, which is, happily,
> still current). Given that the creators of the
> original word list often use what I (and the
> dictionaries) think of as nonstandard (indeed,
> substandard) usage ("disinterest" elsewhere in
> the list, the inability to distinguish between
> "Don" and "dawn" and so on) I suppose this is
> what they ahd in mind

I don't know. I think what they had in mind is that
{a'o} and {a'onai} were to express hope and despair
and that was that, not that the accompanying bridi
would describe the hoped for or dreaded situation.

-- though a usage that is
> over twenty years old must have made it into some
> dictionary or other (but my newest dictionary is
> from the mid 90s).

I don't know if dictionaries are that quick to pick up
such usages. If I had to guess, I would say this use
of "despair that" must be much older than twenty years,
but I can't really justify my hunch. It is certainly the
overwhelmingly prevalent one as found by Google.

> In any case, I suppose that
> the affect and physiology of "despair that" is

How do you figure out the physiology of a usage?

> like that of "despair of" and hence that "fear
> that" (with a different affect and physiology)
> is not an exact substitute.

Nature abhors exact synonyms anyway.

> I suggest "dread"
> for the key word --

I will add it, yes.

> Well, I see no evidece that the old usage has
> disappeared or event decreased in frequency. The
> new seems merely added on.

In the "I dispair that x" form as found with Google, the
undesirable x case is clearly prevalent, although there
are cases of desirable x, almost always containing the
word "ever".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/12/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > .a'o nai ro da ca se cirko
> > Everything will be lost now.
> >
> > which mentions an undesirable event.
>
> This is the ambiguity of unextended "desire;" I
> am reading it in the usual sense "despair of",
> you in the rising one "despair that" and it gives
> exactly opposite results with respect to the
> framing sentence.

Ouch! How do you get "everything is lost" as a desirable
thing?

> In most cases (moral, legal, etc.) there are
> things that fall outside the scope of the rules
> (the law and which fork to use, for example) and
> there are also matters inside the scope that are
> not decided (cell phones while driving was until
> about a year ago, and still is in most
> jurisdictions — including Missouri, alas). So,
> is {einai} about the first (outside the scope of
> the rules) or the second (not fixed within the
> rules)?

I'd say it could be either. We're not talking of any
fixed and clear set of laws anyway. If the distinction
is relevant, {ei cu'i} could be used for the "undecided"
case.

> > .ei nai do tolnurcni
> > You don't have to feel threatened.
> >
> The main question is whether it can be taken as a
> reasonable reading of "freedom" (in this context,
> as you have developed it, obviously the wrong
> word).

Yes. As is "obligation" for "how things ought to be".
The idea is:

ei: "I feel/consider things ought to be this way:"
einai: "I feel/consider things need not be this way:"

> While it
> is unclear what the original meant, this is
> pretty clearly a change, even if a needed one.

Yes, in the case of {ei} a very old one, at least in my
usage.

> If these are irrealis,
> then they presumably don't deal with fait
> accompli even negatively.

I didn't choose the title of the page. I don't think these
words are, in general, irrealis markers. But in most cases
(perhaps all) they are compatible with an irrealis marker
and tend to be non-assertions.

> > > However, most of these,
> > > while they make a lot more sense, are not
> > > obviously what the standard list gives.
> >
> > {e'e} and {e'i} in particular, which is not
> > really so'e
> > but it is so'o, yes.
>
> Huh?! what do most and several have to do with
> these items on either reading?

There were five items in the list, two of which are not
obviously what the standard list gives. The other three,
{e'a}, {e'o} and {e'u} are kept in perfect accordance
with the standard list, so I was just objecting to your
use of "most" there.

> <<> I would take {ie} to be a performative not a
> > judgment.
>
> Well, usage has consistently been as in {ie go'i}
> "I agree with that", as far as I can tell.>>
> This hardly helps if what is {go'i}d is {e'u x}
> example.

I mean {ie go'i}, or a simple {ie}, as response to an
assertion. That's probably the most common use of {ie}.

> Otherwise, how does {i'e go'i} differ
> from {ia go'i}, which seems also to occur?

I can't find any instances of {ia go'i}, but I would use
it instead of {ie go'i} if the previous speaker was
asking a question rather than making an assertion.

> <<> But then I tend to think of agreement
> > and disagreement as about proposals, not about
> > claims, responses to some {e'V} or other.
>
> That would probably fit {vi'o}.>>
>
> Well, at most in the case where what is given is
> a command;

I've used and seen it used mostly as a response to
a request. That's probably because in irc chat people
don't usually go ordering each other about, but requests
do happen.

> when negotiation is a possibility
> (which it is even with some command forms) then
> agreement is different from compliance (logically
> and affectively)

Yes, but {ie} does not seem to be used that way.
At least not in the great majority of cases.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/12/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Well, this is a new usage (and I dread to
> think
> > how it came about — it is related to the old
> in
> > a peculiar way: despair that x = despair of
> > not-x).
>
> It's not an unnatural change though, I think
> this kind
> of polarity shifts is not all that rare with
> words that
> have a negative sense in them. It's interesting
> that
> none of the examples is the least bit
> ambiguous.
> I suspect this might be related to the loss of
> the
> subjunctive in English. "I despair that x" with
> a
> desirable (and unlikely, uncertain) x requires
> x to be
> in the subjunctive, whereas with an undesirable
>
> (and likely or certain) x the indicative will
> do just fine.
> Almost all the examples with desirable x's that
> I
> find contain "ever" as a subjunctive marker:
>
> I despair that there ever will be an end to it
> all.
>
> I despair that Microsoft will ever again play
> the
> part they so badly need to play in our
> industry:
>
> Sometimes I despair that I shall ever read the
> books I want to read

I now find the "despair that" with desired object
bizarre, but easier to explain (the pattern from
"hope"). In any event, the usage is too new to be
affected by the loss of the subjunctive, which
was long before the usage arose. Nor is "ever"
particularly a mark of subjunctiveness. It is a
mark of subordination (including to negation)
like "any", say, in that it rarely (if ever)
occurs in main clauses. And, in many languages
-- but not in English even when subjunctives were
more vigorous — subordinate clauses are often
subjunctive, often regardless of meaning (English
subjunctives seem to usually have been more
meaning-driven).
>
> > It has not made it into any dictionary I
> > could find. But, yes, it does offer just
> the
> > sort of thing you want: undesirable event
> likely
> > to occur (maybe not so strongly as fear that
> --
> > or maybe more so insofar as the hope lost
> carries
> > over from the older form, which is, happily,
> > still current). Given that the creators of
> the
> > original word list often use what I (and the
> > dictionaries) think of as nonstandard
> (indeed,
> > substandard) usage ("disinterest" elsewhere
> in
> > the list, the inability to distinguish
> between
> > "Don" and "dawn" and so on) I suppose this is
> > what they ahd in mind
>
> I don't know. I think what they had in mind is
> that
> {a'o} and {a'onai} were to express hope and
> despair
> and that was that, not that the accompanying
> bridi
> would describe the hoped for or dreaded
> situation.

Well, the examples — what few there are — and
the classification — as a propositional attitude
(illegitimately so called from the original
context for the phrase)-- and the warning not to
confuse {a'o x} with {mi pacna le nu x} (and
isn't the definition of {pacna} a disaster
waiting to happen!) all suggest that the
accompanying sentence is meant to be the object
of the hope or whatever.

> — though a usage that is
> > over twenty years old must have made it into
> some
> > dictionary or other (but my newest dictionary
> is
> > from the mid 90s).
>
> I don't know if dictionaries are that quick to
> pick up
> such usages. If I had to guess, I would say
> this use
> of "despair that" must be much older than
> twenty years,
> but I can't really justify my hunch. It is
> certainly the
> overwhelmingly prevalent one as found by
> Google.

Nowadays, published dictionaries are only about
five years out of date and online ones even less.
By the way, the online dictionaries I could find
all lack either usage, indeed, "despair that"
altogether.

> > In any case, I suppose that
> > the affect and physiology of "despair that"
> is
>
> How do you figure out the physiology of a
> usage?

Well, it is meant to express an emotion (actually
in ths case, amazingly) and that emotion has a
certain affect and a corresponding physiological
pattern (which nowadays largely "explains" the
affect). Hope is an upper and a dose of
seratonin; despair is a downer and a dose of
whatever it is (GBA?) that counteracts seratonin.
Fear (and dread?) are slightly down but more
preparation for activity in terms of adrenalin
and glucose.

> > like that of "despair of" and hence that
> "fear
> > that" (with a different affect and
> physiology)
> > is not an exact substitute.
>
> Nature abhors exact synonyms anyway.
>
> > I suggest "dread"
> > for the key word --
>
> I will add it, yes.
>
> > Well, I see no evidece that the old usage has
> > disappeared or event decreased in frequency.
> The
> > new seems merely added on.
>
> In the "I dispair that x" form as found with
> Google, the
> undesirable x case is clearly prevalent,
> although there
> are cases of desirable x, almost always
> containing the
> word "ever".

But "despair that" is the new usage in question.
Are there no longer any "despair of" cases to be had?

---

> On 8/12/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > .a'o nai ro da ca se cirko
> > > Everything will be lost now.
> > >
> > > which mentions an undesirable event.
> >
> > This is the ambiguity of unextended "desire;"
> I
> > am reading it in the usual sense "despair
> of",
> > you in the rising one "despair that" and it
> gives
> > exactly opposite results with respect to the
> > framing sentence.
>
> Ouch! How do you get "everything is lost" as a
> desirable
> thing?

Oops! That should be "despair", not "desire."
Does that answer your question (which I otherwise
don't understand, having lost the discussion that
led up to the line cited).

>
> > In most cases (moral, legal, etc.) there are
> > things that fall outside the scope of the
> rules
> > (the law and which fork to use, for example)
> and
> > there are also matters inside the scope that
> are
> > not decided (cell phones while driving was
> until
> > about a year ago, and still is in most
> > jurisdictions — including Missouri, alas).
> So,
> > is {einai} about the first (outside the scope
> of
> > the rules) or the second (not fixed within
> the
> > rules)?
>
> I'd say it could be either. We're not talking
> of any
> fixed and clear set of laws anyway. If the
> distinction
> is relevant, {ei cu'i} could be used for the
> "undecided"
> case.

So, the pattern you introduced for {ai} is being
carried through more or less consistently.

> > > .ei nai do tolnurcni
> > > You don't have to feel threatened.
> > >
> > The main question is whether it can be taken
> as a
> > reasonable reading of "freedom" (in this
> context,
> > as you have developed it, obviously the wrong
> > word).
>
> Yes. As is "obligation" for "how things ought
> to be".
> The idea is:
>
> ei: "I feel/consider things ought to be this
> way:"
> einai: "I feel/consider things need not be this
> way:"

OK, just checking (though both "obligation" and
"freedom" are lousy word here — misleading at
best). The book examples are pretty useless for
deciding, since they are all first-person and so
could be either my judgement or my obliging
myself. The other words in the same series
(unreliable as that is as a guideline) suggest
that this is will and action oriented; that it is
trying to put someone under an ob (in second and
third person) to do something about the matter.
Of course, it could be argued that this is
inherent in judgments as well, so it may be that
there is no real difference here.

> > While it
> > is unclear what the original meant, this is
> > pretty clearly a change, even if a needed
> one.
>
> Yes, in the case of {ei} a very old one, at
> least in my
> usage.
>
> > If these are irrealis,
> > then they presumably don't deal with fait
> > accompli even negatively.
>
> I didn't choose the title of the page. I don't
> think these
> words are, in general, irrealis markers. But in
> most cases
> (perhaps all) they are compatible with an
> irrealis marker
> and tend to be non-assertions.

But, of course, "I didn't mean to hurt you" is,
if not an assertion, then an apology and start of
a defense, which again is very different from an
intention. As noted, intentions (whatever is the
case for the others — but it seems pretty much
to carry through if we ignore a few things that
problably shouldn't be on the list) are irrealis.
You can't intend what is already the case and
thus you cannot express an intention with regard
to it. You can only report a previous intention
-- which is what the English does. The Lojban is
merely unintelligible.

> > > > However, most of these,
> > > > while they make a lot more sense, are not
> > > > obviously what the standard list gives.
> > >
> > > {e'e} and {e'i} in particular, which is not
> > > really so'e
> > > but it is so'o, yes.
> >
> > Huh?! what do most and several have to do
> with
> > these items on either reading?
>
> There were five items in the list, two of which
> are not
> obviously what the standard list gives. The
> other three,
> {e'a}, {e'o} and {e'u} are kept in perfect
> accordance
> with the standard list, so I was just objecting
> to your
> use of "most" there.

Ah. Well, I think your {ie} is a change as well,
but that still does not make "most." I get
impressed by the magnitude of the deviation and
don't notice how it is distributed.

> > <<> I would take {ie} to be a performative
> not a
> > > judgment.
> >
> > Well, usage has consistently been as in {ie
> go'i}
> > "I agree with that", as far as I can tell.>>
> > This hardly helps if what is {go'i}d is {e'u
> x}
> > example.
>
> I mean {ie go'i}, or a simple {ie}, as response
> to an
> assertion. That's probably the most common use
> of {ie}.

I wonder why not {ia}. I also wonder how to
accept a proposal.

> > Otherwise, how does {i'e go'i} differ
> > from {ia go'i}, which seems also to occur?
>
> I can't find any instances of {ia go'i}, but I
> would use
> it instead of {ie go'i} if the previous speaker
> was
> asking a question rather than making an
> assertion.
>
> > <<> But then I tend to think of agreement
> > > and disagreement as about proposals, not
> about
> > > claims, responses to some {e'V} or other.
> >
> > That would probably fit {vi'o}.>>
> >
> > Well, at most in the case where what is given
> is
> > a command;
>
> I've used and seen it used mostly as a response
> to
> a request. That's probably because in irc chat
> people
> don't usually go ordering each other about, but
> requests
> do happen.

The issue (since commands and requests and
petitions are all the same linguistically in
Lojban) is what works with suggestions and other
less direct directives.

> > when negotiation is a possibility
> > (which it is even with some command forms)
> then
> > agreement is different from compliance
> (logically
> > and affectively)
>
> Yes, but {ie} does not seem to be used that
> way.
> At least not in the great majority of cases.

OK. Even the example in CLL can be read in your
way, though it seems wasteful of space when there
are so many items that were left out. The
question of agreeing to a proposal remains as one
of these. Compliance seems the wrong line
altogether, if for not other reason that
proposals need not take the form of getting the
speaker to do something.

By the way. How does one promise in Lojban? Or
sentence? Or proclaim (promulgate)? These ought
all fit in here somewhere but don't obviously
have a place in your system — or in the CLL
version, come to that.

On 8/12/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> (and
> isn't the definition of {pacna} a disaster
> waiting to happen!)

Waiting to happen? It happened already:
<http://www.lojban.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+gismu+Proposal%3A+kanpe>

> > How do you figure out the physiology of a
> > usage?
>
> Well, it is meant to express an emotion (actually
> in ths case, amazingly) and that emotion has a
> certain affect and a corresponding physiological
> pattern (which nowadays largely "explains" the
> affect). Hope is an upper and a dose of
> seratonin; despair is a downer and a dose of
> whatever it is (GBA?) that counteracts seratonin.
> Fear (and dread?) are slightly down but more
> preparation for activity in terms of adrenalin
> and glucose.

Thank god that was not in vogue twenty years ago
or the place structure of {pacna} would have probably
been: "x1 hopes/despairs/fears/dreads that x2, with
serotonin level x3, adrenalin level x4 and glucose
level x5". Phew!

> > In the "I dispair that x" form as found with
> > Google, the
> > undesirable x case is clearly prevalent,
> > although there
> > are cases of desirable x, almost always
> > containing the
> > word "ever".
>
> But "despair that" is the new usage in question.
> Are there no longer any "despair of" cases to be had?

Oh, yes, plenty more than "despair that", but that one
was never an issue.

In many cases it's despair of a thing or a person though,
which doesn't really qualify as desirable or undesirable
(although if pressed I would have to say they fall on the
undesirable side: "I despair of the current state of radio")
But when it's dispair *of an event happening*, it's always
a desirable one, as far as I can tell.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/12/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't
> > think these
> > words are, in general, irrealis markers. But in
> > most cases
> > (perhaps all) they are compatible with an
> > irrealis marker
> > and tend to be non-assertions.
>
> But, of course, "I didn't mean to hurt you" is,
> if not an assertion, then an apology and start of
> a defense, which again is very different from an
> intention.

Yes, it's different from an intention. {ainai} is meant to
show lack of intention, not intention.

> As noted, intentions (whatever is the
> case for the others — but it seems pretty much
> to carry through if we ignore a few things that
> problably shouldn't be on the list) are irrealis.
> You can't intend what is already the case and
> thus you cannot express an intention with regard
> to it. You can only report a previous intention
> — which is what the English does. The Lojban is
> merely unintelligible.

I don't really see what is gained by imposing the
irrealis condition, so prefer not to do it.

> > I mean {ie go'i}, or a simple {ie}, as response
> > to an
> > assertion. That's probably the most common use
> > of {ie}.
>
> I wonder why not {ia}.

Maybe because {ia} may carry religious overtones?
Just guessing, I don't know. What I do know is that
in my experience {ie} is used very frequently, and {ia}
very rarely.

> I also wonder how to
> accept a proposal.

{.i'a} probably.

> By the way. How does one promise in Lojban?

{nu'e}

> Or sentence?

As in "I hearby declare"? {ca'e}.

> Or proclaim (promulgate)?

Same?

>These ought
> all fit in here somewhere but don't obviously
> have a place in your system — or in the CLL
> version, come to that.

Most COIs should be in UI, as I often say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/12/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > (and
> > isn't the definition of {pacna} a disaster
> > waiting to happen!)
>
> Waiting to happen? It happened already:
>
<http://www.lojban.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+gismu+Proposal%3A+kanpe>

Nice. Pacna still mixes hopes and desires,
whihc, while "hope" implies desire, are very
different in other respects. Hope has affect and
physiological correlates, desire does not or very
different ones, but there are other differences
as well. Desire is unrelated to expectations, for
example. And what ever happened to {djica} in all
of this?

> > > How do you figure out the physiology of a
> > > usage?
> >
> > Well, it is meant to express an emotion
> (actually
> > in ths case, amazingly) and that emotion has
> a
> > certain affect and a corresponding
> physiological
> > pattern (which nowadays largely "explains"
> the
> > affect). Hope is an upper and a dose of
> > seratonin; despair is a downer and a dose of
> > whatever it is (GBA?) that counteracts
> seratonin.
> > Fear (and dread?) are slightly down but more
> > preparation for activity in terms of
> adrenalin
> > and glucose.
>
> Thank god that was not in vogue twenty years
> ago
> or the place structure of {pacna} would have
> probably
> been: "x1 hopes/despairs/fears/dreads that x2,
> with
> serotonin level x3, adrenalin level x4 and
> glucose
> level x5". Phew!

This stuff was around 20 years ago (indeed, 40,
though not in as much detail) but happily it was
not out in the popular literature yet (I had a
course in loosely bio-epistemology in grad school
to get what was to be had in the mid 60s).
Otherwise, I fear that you would have been right.
The numbers that there are on {pacna} — and
{kanpe}are suspect enough. In any case this
would not affect the UI; it was just a point
about how emotions are more tricky than their
logic would allow: "fear that" works logically
but not really (and I don't know what is the
norm in actual experience here or if both dread
and despair are possible).

> > > In the "I dispair that x" form as found
> with
> > > Google, the
> > > undesirable x case is clearly prevalent,
> > > although there
> > > are cases of desirable x, almost always
> > > containing the
> > > word "ever".
> >
> > But "despair that" is the new usage in
> question.
> > Are there no longer any "despair of" cases to
> be had?
>
> Oh, yes, plenty more than "despair that", but
> that one
> was never an issue.

The point is that you can't just say that {ainai}
means "despair" and expect folks to get to the
right meaning since the two are so nearly
opposite, with only the affect carrying over.

> In many cases it's despair of a thing or a
> person though,
> which doesn't really qualify as desirable or
> undesirable
> (although if pressed I would have to say they
> fall on the
> undesirable side: "I despair of the current
> state of radio")
> But when it's dispair *of an event happening*,
> it's always
> a desirable one, as far as I can tell.

On my general principle about desires and the
like always being about events, I would take the
the "despair of" and "despair for" with things as
object as being shorthand for appropriate
expressions about events involving those things,
though I would hate to have to claim any
particular expansion was correct.

---

> On 8/12/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't
> > > think these
> > > words are, in general, irrealis markers.
> But in
> > > most cases
> > > (perhaps all) they are compatible with an
> > > irrealis marker
> > > and tend to be non-assertions.
> >
> > But, of course, "I didn't mean to hurt you"
> is,
> > if not an assertion, then an apology and
> start of
> > a defense, which again is very different from
> an
> > intention.
>
> Yes, it's different from an intention. {ainai}
> is meant to
> show lack of intention, not intention.

Presumably indicating lack of intention is only
appropriate where indicating intention would be
appropriate, It isn't for acknowledged past
events.

> > As noted, intentions (whatever is the
> > case for the others — but it seems pretty
> much
> > to carry through if we ignore a few things
> that
> > problably shouldn't be on the list) are
> irrealis.
> > You can't intend what is already the case and
> > thus you cannot express an intention with
> regard
> > to it. You can only report a previous
> intention
> > — which is what the English does. The
> Lojban is
> > merely unintelligible.
>
> I don't really see what is gained by imposing
> the
> irrealis condition, so prefer not to do it.

It is not an imposition; it is the nature of
intentions. Now, you may say that {ai} is about
something other than intentions but then we will
have to find something else to do for intentions
and come up with something else for {ai} that can
be fit plausibly around the given definitions for
{ai}.

>
> > > I mean {ie go'i}, or a simple {ie}, as
> response
> > > to an
> > > assertion. That's probably the most common
> use
> > > of {ie}.
> >
> > I wonder why not {ia}.
>
> Maybe because {ia} may carry religious
> overtones?
> Just guessing, I don't know. What I do know is
> that
> in my experience {ie} is used very frequently,
> and {ia}
> very rarely.
>
> > I also wonder how to
> > accept a proposal.
>
> {.i'a} probably.

Wrong kind of acceptance if "blame" is vaguely
right for the negative form (want "rejection" or
some such).

> > By the way. How does one promise in Lojban?
>
> {nu'e}

How strange that that is in COI while so many
related notions are in UI. I wonder how that
works.

> > Or sentence?
>
> As in "I hearby declare"? {ca'e}.

Certainly not if "I define" is at all aaccurate
(though I have to admit I have trouble seeing
this as useful for anyone but a logician most of
the time). Sentencing — and promulgating to go
to the next case — involve a web of rights and
duties that go far beyond anything that
defintions can ever involve.
> > Or proclaim (promulgate)?
>
> Same?
Maybe, but not {ca'e}.

> >These ought
> > all fit in here somewhere but don't obviously
> > have a place in your system — or in the CLL
> > version, come to that.
>
> Most COIs should be in UI, as I often say.

Well, {nu'e} pretty clearly is and, of course, an
irrealis one at that.

On 8/12/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Otherwise, I fear that you would have been right.

Hmm... I wonder how we would say that in Lojban?
Perhaps something like:

a'o nai va'o nai ku da'i do drani

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/12/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > I also wonder how to
> > > accept a proposal.
> >
> > {.i'a} probably.
>
> Wrong kind of acceptance if "blame" is vaguely
> right for the negative form (want "rejection" or
> some such).

Yes, I pushed "blame" out of first place anyway:

.i'a (UI1)
Attitudinal. Used to express acceptance / acknowledgement / admission
/ assent / consent / acquiescence / conformity / satisfaction (cf.
selmansa, nalpro, no'epro, nalzugjdi, fi'i)
.i'a ta banzu
Okay, that will do.

.i'a nai (UI*1)
Attitudinal. Used to express refusal / rejection / eschewal /
resistance / dissatisfaction / blame / incrimination / inculpation
(cf. tolselmansa, fi'i nai)
.i'a nai ta mi za'o na mansa
No, that still doesn't satisfy me.

> > > Or sentence?
> >
> > As in "I hearby declare"? {ca'e}.
>
> Certainly not if "I define" is at all aaccurate

It isn't very. Here is Arnt's proposed expanded definition:

ca'e (UI2)
Evidential. Used to mark a performative/speech act,
that is, an utterance that is true because the speaker
says so. See also the preface.

Not that I would call it an evidential, but anyway it's
better than "I define".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> On 8/12/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I also wonder how to
> > > > accept a proposal.
> > >
> > > {.i'a} probably.
> >
> > Wrong kind of acceptance if "blame" is
> vaguely
> > right for the negative form (want "rejection"
> or
> > some such).
>
> Yes, I pushed "blame" out of first place
> anyway:
>
> .i'a (UI1)
> Attitudinal. Used to express acceptance /
> acknowledgement / admission
> / assent / consent / acquiescence / conformity
> / satisfaction (cf.
> selmansa, nalpro, no'epro, nalzugjdi, fi'i)
> .i'a ta banzu
> Okay, that will do.
>
>
> .i'a nai (UI*1)
> Attitudinal. Used to express refusal /
> rejection / eschewal /
> resistance / dissatisfaction / blame /
> incrimination / inculpation
> (cf. tolselmansa, fi'i nai)
> .i'a nai ta mi za'o na mansa
> No, that still doesn't satisfy me.
>
These look to be a pretty mixed bag of things
some of which maybe go together though still
different, others of which don't fit in at all
(different logics as well as different affects or
whatever). But that is a prima facie judgment;
I'll give it some time and thought.
> > > > Or sentence?
> > >
> > > As in "I hearby declare"? {ca'e}.
> >
> > Certainly not if "I define" is at all
> aaccurate
>
> It isn't very. Here is Arnt's proposed expanded
> definition:
>
> ca'e (UI2)
> Evidential. Used to mark a performative/speech
> act,
> that is, an utterance that is true because the
> speaker
> says so. See also the preface.
>
> Not that I would call it an evidential, but
> anyway it's
> better than "I define"

I suppose evidential in the slightly scewed sense
its used here, but it does seem to cry out for
another category: "performstive speech acts"
springs to mind (and drags {nu'e}in and probably
some others. Still, "I believe it is true
because I say so" makes somewhat the same kind of
sense as
"I believe it true because I saw it/heard it from
Bertel Isaac/deduced it from other stuff" and is
often actually used by people who are actually in
a position to do world-creating acts, mainly
parents (and sargeants).

ai, au, a'o ... and a'i

Let's consider three features that ai, au and a'o might be taken
to indicate: desirable (D+) / undesirable (D-), under-control (C+) /
not-under-control (C-), and likely (L+) / unlikely (L-).

Let's then define:

ai: D+ C+ L+ ainai: D- C+ L+
a'o: D+ C- L+ a'onai: D- C- L+
au: D+ C- L- aunai: D- C- L-

What {nai} does is turn desirable into undesirable, leaving the
control and likelihood features unchanged.

The two remaining combinations happen to fit {a'i} and {a'inai} pretty
well, so I'm bringing those from the "realis" to the "irrealis" camp.
(This is not really a big deal because CLL has them classified
as "propositional attitudes" too.)

The two remaining combinations then are:

a'i: D+ C+ L- a'inai: D- C+ L-

The positive forms are thus all D+, and the nai-forms are all D-.

{ai} and {a'i} are the C+ forms, and {au and a'o} the C-.
{ai} and {a'o} are the L+ forms and {au} and {a'i} the L- ones.

"Likely" and "unlikely" are not to be taken in an absolute
sense, but relative to each other. "Unlikely" includes the impossible
(incompatible with reality) case, and "likely" includes the certain
or actual case.

There are still some issues though. I'm not too sure what aunai (D-C-L-)
would amount to.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

---

> ai, au, a'o ... and a'i
>
> Let's consider three features that ai, au and
> a'o might be taken
> to indicate: desirable (D+) / undesirable (D-),
> under-control (C+) /
> not-under-control (C-), and likely (L+) /
> unlikely (L-).
>
> Let's then define:
>
> ai: D+ C+ L+ ainai: D- C+ L+
> a'o: D+ C- L+ a'onai: D- C- L+
> au: D+ C- L- aunai: D- C- L-
>
> What {nai} does is turn desirable into
> undesirable, leaving the
> control and likelihood features unchanged.

As noted earlier, if "desire" is at all correct
for {au}, then likelihood plays no role at all in
its realization. We can desire the inevitable as
well as the impossible and anything in between.
It is probably also the case that control is not
a part of the definition; indeed, one expect
that, if "desire" is correct in both places {au}
is simply D+. Of course, we might take the "-"
to mean "irrelevant" or some such thing, but that
doesn't fit the C of {a'o}, nor the L of {ai},
where the likelihood is again not important.
And, of course, fits none of the D-s.

> The two remaining combinations happen to fit
> {a'i} and {a'inai} pretty
> well, so I'm bringing those from the "realis"
> to the "irrealis" camp.
> (This is not really a big deal because CLL has
> them classified
> as "propositional attitudes" too.)
>
> The two remaining combinations then are:
>
> a'i: D+ C+ L- a'inai: D- C+ L-

This is a change in {a'i nai}, since it is hard
to see this combination as "repose" in any sense.
Or is it? "Not going to make an effort" is, I
suppose, one way of looking at it and could fit
both slots ({a'inai} and "repose").

> The positive forms are thus all D+, and the
> nai-forms are all D-.
>
> {ai} and {a'i} are the C+ forms, and {au and
> a'o} the C-.
> {ai} and {a'o} are the L+ forms and {au} and
> {a'i} the L- ones.
>
> "Likely" and "unlikely" are not to be taken in
> an absolute
> sense, but relative to each other. "Unlikely"
> includes the impossible
> (incompatible with reality) case, and "likely"
> includes the certain
> or actual case.
>
> There are still some issues though. I'm not too
> sure what aunai (D-C-L-)
> would amount to.

The Ds work throughout (with some appropriate
version of what {a'inai} means. The C in {au}
doesn't belong unless "-" means "irrelevant" and
likewise the L, which also irrelevant for at
least {ai}.

On 8/13/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As noted earlier, if "desire" is at all correct
> for {au}, then likelihood plays no role at all in
> its realization. We can desire the inevitable as
> well as the impossible and anything in between.
> It is probably also the case that control is not
> a part of the definition; indeed, one expect
> that, if "desire" is correct in both places {au}
> is simply D+.

Right.

The difference between our approaches seems to be that you
are concentrating on the English keyword and its nuances
for each individual word on its own, whereas I'm trying to look
at all the words together and use the English keywords as mere
signposts that may not be all that accurate.

The detailed semantics of the word "desire" doesn't really
interest me here. As I said, I'm taking {au} to indicate
a wish, as in "oh that it were so". If "desire" is not the ideal
keyword for that, that's too bad. Maybe what I'm proposing
is not the optimum meaning for {au} either, but at least I'm
trying to figure out how it all fits together.

> Of course, we might take the "-"
> to mean "irrelevant" or some such thing, but that
> doesn't fit the C of {a'o}, nor the L of {ai},
> where the likelihood is again not important.

Likelihood is what I'm taking (for now at least) to be the
distinction between {ai} and {a'i}. In both cases they indicate
the goal of the actions of the speaker, suggested by "desirable,
under-control". The difference is that with intention the
speaker finds the achievement of the goal more certain or
likely wheras with attempt/effort success is not taken for
granted, and it is at least comparatively unlikely.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Ok. So "desire" is the wrong word; I suggest
"wish" (as in "wishful thinking") for the
psoitive side. Nothing suggests itself for the
negative: maybe "worry" in its most pejorative
sense.
On the whole, think the idea of fitting these
notions into sstematic groujpings is a good idea.
May this set be the harbinger and pattern of
many more.

---

> On 8/13/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > As noted earlier, if "desire" is at all
> correct
> > for {au}, then likelihood plays no role at
> all in
> > its realization. We can desire the
> inevitable as
> > well as the impossible and anything in
> between.
> > It is probably also the case that control is
> not
> > a part of the definition; indeed, one expect
> > that, if "desire" is correct in both places
> {au}
> > is simply D+.
>
> Right.
>
> The difference between our approaches seems to
> be that you
> are concentrating on the English keyword and
> its nuances
> for each individual word on its own, whereas
> I'm trying to look
> at all the words together and use the English
> keywords as mere
> signposts that may not be all that accurate.
>
> The detailed semantics of the word "desire"
> doesn't really
> interest me here. As I said, I'm taking {au} to
> indicate
> a wish, as in "oh that it were so". If "desire"
> is not the ideal
> keyword for that, that's too bad. Maybe what
> I'm proposing
> is not the optimum meaning for {au} either, but
> at least I'm
> trying to figure out how it all fits together.
>
> > Of course, we might take the "-"
> > to mean "irrelevant" or some such thing, but
> that
> > doesn't fit the C of {a'o}, nor the L of
> {ai},
> > where the likelihood is again not important.
>
> Likelihood is what I'm taking (for now at
> least) to be the
> distinction between {ai} and {a'i}. In both
> cases they indicate
> the goal of the actions of the speaker,
> suggested by "desirable,
> under-control". The difference is that with
> intention the
> speaker finds the achievement of the goal more
> certain or
> likely wheras with attempt/effort success is
> not taken for
> granted, and it is at least comparatively
> unlikely.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/13/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> As noted earlier, if "desire" is at all correct
>> for {au}, then likelihood plays no role at all in
>> its realization. We can desire the inevitable as
>> well as the impossible and anything in between.
>> It is probably also the case that control is not
>> a part of the definition; indeed, one expect
>> that, if "desire" is correct in both places {au}
>> is simply D+.
>
> Right.
>
> The difference between our approaches seems to be that you
> are concentrating on the English keyword and its nuances
> for each individual word on its own, whereas I'm trying to look
> at all the words together and use the English keywords as mere
> signposts that may not be all that accurate.

I must agree with PC here. This does not seem so much as an issue of a few
poorly chosen signpost keywords, but a featural model that does not seem
to fit the intentions of the originators very well, even if we look at it
holistically.

> Likelihood is what I'm taking (for now at least) to be the
> distinction between {ai} and {a'i}.

This interpretation does not seem to fit well with example 3.4, p 302
("It'll be hard for me to wake you up").

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Evan, a Quiz Bowl reject, nevertheless knows more than what's good for
him. The son of deposed royalty from some obscure nation whose name is
probably only known to himself, Evan is the life of the party when the
party's over. — Leon Lin: Kissing the Buddha's Feet

On 8/18/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> I must agree with PC here. This does not seem so much as an issue of a few
> poorly chosen signpost keywords, but a featural model that does not seem
> to fit the intentions of the originators very well, even if we look at it
> holistically.

If you can fathom their intentions from a holistic perspective,
please do explain them.

> > Likelihood is what I'm taking (for now at least) to be the
> > distinction between {ai} and {a'i}.
>
> This interpretation does not seem to fit well with example 3.4, p 302
> ("It'll be hard for me to wake you up").

Why not? I added it as an example precisely because
I thought it did. If it's hard for me to wake you up, it means
that your waking up is relatively unlikely, not a given,
despite mi intentions, doesn't it? In other words, I'll do my
best but the result is not guaranteed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 8/18/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>> I must agree with PC here. This does not seem so much as an issue of a few
>> poorly chosen signpost keywords, but a featural model that does not seem
>> to fit the intentions of the originators very well, even if we look at it
>> holistically.
>
> If you can fathom their intentions from a holistic perspective,
> please do explain them.

Very well.

I believe that the attitudinal system was designed as a bag of loose
senses with no interconnection, selected based on their
perceived usefulness.

To quote the CLL, section 13.6, p 306:

> The Lojban attitudinal system was designed by starting with a long list
> of English emotion words, far too many to fit into the 39 available
> VV-form cmavo. To keep the number of cmavo limited, the emotion words in
> the list were grouped together by common features: each group was then
> assigned a separate cmavo. This was like making tanru in reverse, and
> the result is a collection of indicators that can be combined, like
> tanru, to express very complex emotions.

>>> Likelihood is what I'm taking (for now at least) to be the
>>> distinction between {ai} and {a'i}.
>>
>> This interpretation does not seem to fit well with example 3.4, p 302
>> ("It'll be hard for me to wake you up").
>
> Why not? I added it as an example precisely because
> I thought it did. If it's hard for me to wake you up, it means
> that your waking up is relatively unlikely, not a given,
> despite mi intentions, doesn't it? In other words, I'll do my
> best but the result is not guaranteed.

My interpretation was that your waking up is a given, but this fact is
associated with a feeling of the excertion of effort.

But since the CLL groups it along with propositional indicators, and that
the available usage could be interpreted either way, I'm willing to
concede on this point.

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

On 8/23/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> To quote the CLL, section 13.6, p 306:
>
> > The Lojban attitudinal system was designed by starting with a long list
> > of English emotion words, far too many to fit into the 39 available
> > VV-form cmavo. To keep the number of cmavo limited, the emotion words in
> > the list were grouped together by common features: each group was then
> > assigned a separate cmavo.

It would be quite useful to see the original list. I wonder
if anyone has it or remembers where it was taken from.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> It would be quite useful to see the original list. I wonder
> if anyone has it or remembers where it was taken from.

If it's anywhere it's in the LeChevaliers' basement, probably in hard copy.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon.
Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back
again. It's a classic tale. --Kryten, Red Dwarf

---

wrote:

> Jorge Llambías scripsit:
>
> > It would be quite useful to see the original
> list. I wonder
> > if anyone has it or remembers where it was
> taken from.
>
> If it's anywhere it's in the LeChevaliers'
> basement, probably in hard copy.

It might be recomstructable. My guess
(recollection?)is that a large part of it came
from a topical thesaurus (not a dictionary one)
and the words listed under "Emotion" or "Feeling"
or so. there may have been other sources, but I
believe this was a main one.

I spotted this in response to Robin's call for assistance, and am not
sure of the context.

Jorge Llambas wrote:
> On 8/23/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>>To quote the CLL, section 13.6, p 306:
>>
>>>The Lojban attitudinal system was designed by starting with a long list
>>>of English emotion words, far too many to fit into the 39 available
>>>VV-form cmavo. To keep the number of cmavo limited, the emotion words in
>>>the list were grouped together by common features: each group was then
>>>assigned a separate cmavo.
>
> It would be quite useful to see the original list. I wonder
> if anyone has it or remembers where it was taken from.

I dunno if it is useful, but a bit of digging uncovered the 2nd step in
this process, which was the attempt to group attitudes together by
properties, before we considered how to assign the VVs to those attitudes.

At this point, we had clearly decided on the use of two extremes and a
middle/neutral position, and we had come up with the 5 (now 6)
classifiers (social, physical, sexual) to simplify the list

The first step was a big long list of probably 200-odd emotion words
written down as they came to mind over a week or two. As those words
were put onto the 2nd step list, they were crossed off, and I have no
particular reason to believe that we saved the list of entirely
scribbled out words.

This second list is pretty scribbly too, though I can read it all. All
squeezed into one sheet with 5-6 problem "attitudes" listed on the back
that we had not decided were fully dealt with.

The work is undated, but there is a date clue in some transactions I
needed to enter into the balance data base. Based on these, I'd guess
this list was made in Sep 88 or Sept 89; I could determine which by
looking up the transactions that were entered.

lojbab

John E Clifford wrote:
> --- "John.Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> wrote:
>>Jorge Llambas scripsit:
>>
>>>It would be quite useful to see the original
>>list. I wonder
>>>if anyone has it or remembers where it was
>>taken from.
>>
>>If it's anywhere it's in the LeChevaliers'
>>basement, probably in hard copy.
>
>
> It might be recomstructable. My guess
> (recollection?)is that a large part of it came
> from a topical thesaurus (not a dictionary one)
> and the words listed under "Emotion" or "Feeling"
> or so. there may have been other sources, but I
> believe this was a main one.

Actually, the original list was a group-grope by a half-dozen
prospective Lojban students in New Jersey at Art Wieners's house. That
was where the original idea of expanding and systematizing the
attitudinals was suggested. Then Nora and I added to the list at home,
possibly indeed by looking in a thesaurus among other places. I also
went to the library once, and looked for books or articles on emotion,
and I recall reading something in Psychology Today on someone else's
attempt to classify emotions, that made me feel that we were doing
something good. Actually attempting to systematize the list added to
the list, as we tried to think of opposites and neutrals. If we came up
with multiple scales, we selected one, and added the others to the list
to be dealt with.

The concept of realis/irrealis had I think come up a bit before this,
though not using those words. I believe that when I visited him in Oct
1986(?), PC explained a possible grouping of the old set of attitudinals
in terms of "possible worlds", and I think I have some notes on that
somewhere, possible in correspondence from PC (though I might be
remembering conversations from that visit or from his appearances at
LogFests). I know his classification informed our assignment of cmavo
to some extent, though we found it difficult to match the new list with
PC's formulation.

lojbab

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> I must agree with PC here. This does not seem so much as an issue of a
> few poorly chosen signpost keywords, but a featural model that does not
> seem to fit the intentions of the originators very well, even if we look
> at it holistically.
>
>> Likelihood is what I'm taking (for now at least) to be the
>> distinction between {ai} and {a'i}.
>
> This interpretation does not seem to fit well with example 3.4, p 302
> ("It'll be hard for me to wake you up").

I am intentionally NOT reading CLL and the byfy page before addressing
this, since the question is the original intent of the originators (i.e.
me). I am looking at the draft list, though ity doesn't exactly match
the final cmavo list scales.

1. There is no particular relationship implied between ai and a'i just
because they use the same letters. We had to squeeze the scales in, and
couldn't be too picky.

2. The classic a'i might be used by a worker exerting themselves at a
task. The extreme of a'inai is non-effort or an avoidance of effort. I
have the word "laziness" down on the negative side along with repose, as
the opposite of effort. Passivity might be the term used in a sexual
context. No effort to interact in a social context (we always tried to
look at these words using the 5 ro'V groupings in trying to interpret
them. I hope that Jorge (or whoever) is considering the current 6
groupings in formalizing the definitions, because they are important in
achieving the fullest expressive/definitional scope, even if people
don't use them much these days.

3. Intent (ai) has nothing at all to do with whether one is making any
significant effort to bring that which is intended about. I could use
"ai" in a discussion about interplanetary exploration, even though there
isn't much I could do to bring it about, effort-wise.

4. ai is distinguished from a'o in that a'o suggests to me a more
personal emotional investment in the proposition. a'o is thus close to
au - neither a'o nor au suggests in the slightest to me that the speaker
necessarily would do anything about it. ai suggests that the speaker
might do something to bring it about, but does not necessarily require
any personal effort in that direction - a commander giving orders might
use ai, but would not use a'i if the commander was not himself involved
in bringing the result about.

The example above quoted from CLL seems not especially indicative of any
of the attitudinals.
> This interpretation does not seem to fit well with example 3.4, p 302
> ("It'll be hard for me to wake you up").
though that might be because the example has been distanced in time from
any actual effort.

"Boy, are you hard to wake up" does suggest that the speaker has or is
making some effort. "I've tried to wake you up, but you don't want to
respond, and I've got to get ready for work myself" might be an a'icu'i.
"Go set your alarm yourself if you want to get up; don't expect any
help from me" is an a'inai response.

In the mental arena, a'iro'e is someone striving mightily to work out
the problems on the examination. a'icu'iro'e is the expression s/he
might uses when the problem is done as well as the speaker intends.
a'inaicairo'e is used by someone who answers randomly on a multiple
choice question without even reading the problem, or who skips the
problem because even a random answer is too much effort. Social and
sexual effort is understood in terms of activity/passivity. Physical
effort should be self-explanatory. Emotional effort, I think of as a
sort of angst.

One can expend considerable effort on a process without necessarily
having a particular intent or desire for any particular outcome for that
process.

a'oro'e I have confused the issue enough for one post.

lojbab

On 9/6/05, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> a'oro'e I have confused the issue enough for one post.

I don't have any major objections to what you say here.

The most contentious issue about these words was
on the meaning of {ai nai}, in particular, whether it
could be used to indicate "unintentionality", as in
for example:

.ai nai do pu se xrani
Oops! I didn't mean for you to get hurt.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llambas wrote:
> On 9/6/05, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>>a'oro'e I have confused the issue enough for one post.
>
> I don't have any major objections to what you say here.

How rare! zo'o

> The most contentious issue about these words was
> on the meaning of {ai nai}, in particular, whether it
> could be used to indicate "unintentionality", as in
> for example:
>
> .ai nai do pu se xrani
> Oops! I didn't mean for you to get hurt.

I don't have a problem with it from an attitudinal standpoint. But ...

The thing to remember is that attitudinals are immediate emotional
expressions, and I think it is rare that they will be used in a
past-tense expression, except when one is explicitly recalling (ba'anai)
and even then the ba'a may render tense unnecessary (unless we've
concocted some elaborate time-travel scenario).

I thus wouldn't expect that "pu" to be in there.

do se xrani .ainai
You're hurt! I didn't mean it!

Now if you are trying to reconcile this with the keywords, then you
still have to take into account that this is referring to a past tense
event (being hurt). It doesn't make sense to refuse to perform
something that you already did, and the keywords thus cannot apply as
they are.

Now if you are trying to reassure a child about to ride a roller
coaster, you might say

.ainai do (ba) se xrani
I won't let you get hurt.

And that makes more sense in terms of the keyword of "refusal".

And if I was wearing my "original intent" hat and disagreeing with you,
I might use ainai in "rejection" of a definition that you were proposing.

For the context of the byfy work, I would hope that all of the
definitions are being expanded considerably from one word keywords, and
I will not object just because this results in examples inconsistent
with the keywords, provided that there is an expanded definition that is
coherent, and consistent with the times when the keyword might in fact
apply. English doesn't have a true set of attitudinals and there are no
true keywords for many of them - they cover tone of voice, facial
expression, and interjections that outside of the context are
indistinguishable from others.

As Nora says, most of the attitudinals have as their best literal
translation "Oh" or "Ah", with only punctuation used to make the minimal
distinctions possible in print. (Nora did note that for a'i - effort
the English expression would more likely be something like "Oof" - the
sound one might make when making a sudden exertion %^)

But those would neither be definitional, or unique for purposes of
LogFlash, and it is important to realize that the keywords were created
for LogFlash, not to serve in lieu of a dictionary, though of course
we've had 15 years where that is in fact what has happened.

lojbab

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:05:06PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >The most contentious issue about these words was on the meaning
> >of {ai nai}, in particular, whether it could be used to indicate
> >"unintentionality", as in for example:
> >
> > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > Oops! I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
>
> I don't have a problem with it from an attitudinal standpoint. But ...

The objection is that it conflicts with the ma'oste and CLL for no
good reason.

-Robin

On 9/7/05, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> > I don't have any major objections to what you say here.
>
> How rare! zo'o

I had lots of _minor_ objections that I started to write, but in
the end decided they were not worth pursuing.

> > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > Oops! I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
>
> I don't have a problem with it from an attitudinal standpoint. But ...
>
> The thing to remember is that attitudinals are immediate emotional
> expressions, and I think it is rare that they will be used in a
> past-tense expression, except when one is explicitly recalling (ba'anai)
> and even then the ba'a may render tense unnecessary (unless we've
> concocted some elaborate time-travel scenario).

In this case, the hurting has already happened (if at all, it is not
actually claimed, but the occasion for it happening was in the past).
Doesn't the "Oops" suggest that the event is very recent and fresh in the
speaker's mind?

> I thus wouldn't expect that "pu" to be in there.
>
> do se xrani .ainai
> You're hurt! I didn't mean it!

That would work too, yes. Are you saying that it would be incorrect to use
{pu} there? Can {ai nai} never accompany a past event, in your opinion?

> Now if you are trying to reconcile this with the keywords, then you
> still have to take into account that this is referring to a past tense
> event (being hurt). It doesn't make sense to refuse to perform
> something that you already did, and the keywords thus cannot apply as
> they are.

Right. That's why this one is controversial: I'm proposing to change
the keywords.

> Now if you are trying to reassure a child about to ride a roller
> coaster, you might say
>
> .ainai do (ba) se xrani
> I won't let you get hurt.
>
> And that makes more sense in terms of the keyword of "refusal".

For that meaning you could say {ai do na (ba) se xrani}.
The keywords do indeed suggest identifying {ai nai} with {ai na},
but I think that's not the normal pattern for attitudinals.

> And if I was wearing my "original intent" hat and disagreeing with you,
> I might use ainai in "rejection" of a definition that you were proposing.

Wouldn't {.i'a nai} be better for that? The opposite of "acceptance"?

> For the context of the byfy work, I would hope that all of the
> definitions are being expanded considerably from one word keywords, and
> I will not object just because this results in examples inconsistent
> with the keywords, provided that there is an expanded definition that is
> coherent, and consistent with the times when the keyword might in fact
> apply.

Have you had a chance to look at the expanded proposed definitions?

<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Realis%20Attitudinals>

<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Irrealis%20Attitudinals>

> As Nora says, most of the attitudinals have as their best literal
> translation "Oh" or "Ah", with only punctuation used to make the minimal
> distinctions possible in print.

Yes those are very vague, but there are others (somewhat) more
specific, like "aha!", "whoa!", "yaaawn!", "yuck!", "yay!", "ouch!", "wow!",
"snif", etc. which even if they are not a perfect fit for Lojban's they do
approximate some of them.

> (Nora did note that for a'i - effort
> the English expression would more likely be something like "Oof" - the
> sound one might make when making a sudden exertion %^)

Right, but even according to the CLL example, {a'i} need not be about
a _current_ effort. It simply indicates that the speaker has some
sort of control over the event, that they attempt to bring it about,
but that it is not at all a given that they succeed, precisely because
an effort is involved.

> But those would neither be definitional, or unique for purposes of
> LogFlash, and it is important to realize that the keywords were created
> for LogFlash, not to serve in lieu of a dictionary, though of course
> we've had 15 years where that is in fact what has happened.

Yes. Some of the keywords are very transparent, but others have given
people headaches trying to figure out how they could possibly fit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 9/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > .ai nai do pu se xrani
> > > Oops! I didn't mean for you to get hurt.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with it from an attitudinal standpoint. But ...
>
> The objection is that it conflicts with the ma'oste and CLL for no
> good reason.

Or, depending on you point of view, for the very good reasons that:

• {nai} on an attitudinal is not normally used to negate the bridi that the

attitudinal modifies.

• rejection/refusal is already handled much better by other words

(i'anai/vi'onai)

mu'o mi'e xorxes