Re: Lojban attitudinals

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!UCL.AC.UK!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!ucleaar>]

Doug comments perspicaciously on lojban attitudinals:
He reform ulates lojban cruel:kind as:
> 	compassion/empathy - cruelty
> 	pity/sympathy - uncaring
>
> Compassion and pity are very different attitudes, so they should be
> differentiated carefully.

This relates to my recent posting on the subject. I doubted the
'oppositionality' of cruel:kind, and found most of the other oppositions
to be privative. Doug's reformulation more clearly makes the
oppositions privative: presence/absence of cruelt (or mercy), and
presence/absence of pity.

Doug's suggestion is therefore in conformity with the majority of
attitudinals.

> Further additions:
> 	confidence - insecurity (internal)
> 			Compare with the list's: fear - security (external)

This complements my suggestion that fear could be integrated with the
hope attitudinals. Security, the present 'opposite' of fear, can,
following Doug, be opposed to insecurity.

> 	sorrow - unsorrow
> 			In English happiness and sorrow are often
> 			set as opposites, which is behaviorally untrue.
> 			The list rather inexplicably does not include any
> 			variant of sadness.

I think we think of happy:sad not as a privative opposition but as a
directional opposition modelled on up:down (high/low spirits, elated/
depressed). As Lojban would consider this malglico, it should presumably
therefore prefer Doug's suggestion.

> 	jaime vu - deja vu
> 			Extremely common attitudes/experiences;
> 			compare with the list's related familiarity/mystery

What's jaime vu?

> I would also change amusement/weariness to:
>
> 	amusement - gravity (seriousness)
>
> ...as a more accurate opposite.

Or:     levity - gravity
and     entertaining - tiresome

> Lastly, I am somewhat confused by the presence of a number of "speech
> actions":
> 	permission - prohibition
> 	request - negative request
> 	suggestion - abandon suggest - warning
> 	constraint - independence - challenge
>
> These all seem to be speech actions, making me wonder (A) why they are
> in a list of attitudinals, and (B) why the classic speech action of
> promise/oath is not there with them as well.

And benediction & malediction/imprecation.

> No doubt the answer lies in the intended use of the list in some way not
> yet clear to me.

The same goes for me too of course.

---
And