WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 2388




> The page BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals was
> changed by xorxes at Tue 21 of Jun, 2005 23:26
> UTC

>

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

The path here looks toward impudence not
innocence.

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

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


ue ta lenku
Oo, that's cold!





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "innocence" always seemed weird to me too.


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

It should be a noun though. "Expectedness"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


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

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

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

Yes, that does it nicely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


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

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

  • express* either of these (and many others)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


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

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


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

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

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



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

According to this table, rashness would be an excess
of confidence, cowardice a deficiency, and courage the
just mean:
<http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html>

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388




> On 6/23/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > It is not clear what the excess and deficit
> are
> > of in many cases: It may be that cowardice is
> too
> > little courage (though that seems odd in some
> > ways) but impetuosity is not an excess of
> > courage.
>
> According to this table, rashness would be an
> excess
> of confidence, cowardice a deficiency, and
> courage the
> just mean:
>
<http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html>
>
This is at least an expressible "emotion" and
makes for a reasonably clear set of markers, but,
because the positive is in the middle, I don't
suppose it would be used in Lojban. Indeed,
assuming that is what is meant, it seems to have
been split into two separate ones, neither of
which is at all clear (nor expressible, for that matter).