[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 4/23/02 2:53 PM, Rob Speer at rob@hidden.email wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 10:29:25PM -0600, Rex May - Baloo wrote: >> Do Lojban attitudinals differ much from the Loglan in concept? > > I don't think they do. But I haven't really seen Lojban attitudinals. They're at: http://www.loglan.org/Loglan1/chap5.html#sec5.10 > > In short, they can go anywhere in the text, they modify the word or > structure that they follow (so putting one after .i modifies the whole > sentence, and that is where they are usually found), and there are > attitudinal modifiers like "sai" (strong) and "cai" (intense) that > modify attitudinals (or indeed any word that they follow). > > Ceqli attitudinals would be a good role for words beginning with a > vowel. .VV and .VW could be included as pinvor forms for this purpose, > and then there would be a 1-to-1 match with Lojban's .VV and .V'V > attitudinals. For example, consider the ones starting with a: > > Lojban: .ai .au .a'a .a'e .a'i .a'o .a'u > Ceqli: .aj .aw .ar .an .aq .al .am Sounds like pretty much the same thing. I'm mainly against them. There is this notion in Loglan that I think is completely unreal, that It is probably that he's asleep. He's probably asleep. are profoundly different, somehow. I don't agree. Now, there may be room for some pinvor attitudinals of some kind, but certainly not with the ones that have to do with conviction. I prefer the setup: X ke Y. Where X is a predicate and Y is the base sentence. Often the predicate will just be an observative that can take an unspoken Go as a subject. Go cur ke da dorm. Cur ke da dorm. Sometimes beX ke Y Where the Y sentence is the subject of X. Betru ke da dorm. It's true that he's asleep. Problem with this system is that they can't be free modifiers this way without some changes. Maybe a pinvor that means "this statement that follows or surrounds" Say 'taw'. To grosa kan, taw tru, dorm. And the taw can go anywhere. Taw tru, to grosa kan (and here we need a pinvor to show that a predicate's coming up, call it Z for now) dorm. To grosa, taw tru, kan Z dorm. To grosa kan Z dorm, taw tru. And as for the obligation attitudinals, same thing. All can be handled with auxiliary verbs. Actually, I see no use for attitudinals with special forms at all. Does anyone disagree? And some things that I'd think a set of attitudinals aren't included. Go froy ke Y. I'm happy that Y. Froy ke Y. Go koler ke Y. I'm angry that Y. The VV attitudinals, then, express a limited number of things that can be expressed just as well, if not as tersely, by pivor+predicate forms. And they are limited by the number of VV's. Loglan eo (please) for example, is very limited. Means just one thing. In English we have many more options. Please enter. Enter, I beg you. I invite you to enter. I implore you to enter. I want Ceqli to be that flexible. Now, the Loglan position is that attitudinals do not change the truth value of the sentence, which is absurd. To add 'maybe' to a sentence certainly changes its truth value, not to mention an eo, which puts it in the imperative mood, unless I'm missing something. To say 'probably' usually just modifies a whole sentence, or is a statement about a whole sentence. To say 'please,' is to change the meaning of the sentence entirely. My 'ke' constructions will do the jab for most all of what I see Loglan doing. We do need a way to say "it was probably Joe who went to sleep", which means it's definite that somebody went to sleep, but only probably that it was Joe. -- >PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email > Rex F. May (Baloo) > Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp > Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm > Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm >Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/