Re: attitudinals

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!C.J.Fine>]

[Lojbab comments at length on my dialogue - ci'edoi lojbab]

>
> Rhetorical use of questions can be marked with kau, as discussed in
> JL15, or perhaps with peinai.

Does this mean that 'kau' has changed since the logdata3.cma that I
down-loaded from PLS in December?

> I guess this would be suitable for
> translating an English dialog rather literally.  I've never noticed it
> actually happen in Lojban conversation - but then we aren't speaking at
> colloquial speeds.  Colin's try was excellent - he did quite well and
> understandably (I could read and understand without translation).  I'll
> present an edited version incorporating the above responses where I
> think they fit, fixing his minor errors and changing a couple of minor
> points where I think a Lojban conversation would less exactly match its
> English equivalent.  The text parallels Colin's original fairly closely
> - the English translation is virtually identical.
>
> A cusku
> lu ju'icoi. ritcyd. li'u        .i B cusku
>                                 lu .ue.uanai .ua coicu'i li'u
> sei le remei cu simxu se lidne cusku be di'e
> .ilu klama ma li'u              .ilu loi zarci li'u
> .ilu .ua .i te vecnu ma li'u    .ilu loi vrici li'u
> .ilu .i ba zukte ma li'u        .ilu .aicu'i tu'a loi skina .auru'e li'u
> .ilu .ua .i ma selja'o li'u     .ilu na djuno li'u
> .ilu .a'u .e'apei kansa li'u    .ilu cu'i li'u
> .ilu .ai kansa
>   ni'o .i'anai doi ritcyd.
>   semu'i ma do naljikca li'u    .ilu makau do pu malckasu mi li'u
> .ilu .uecai .ianaicai ca ma
>   go'i li'u                     .ilu ca le prulamdei ne'i le gusta do cusku
>                                    ti'e ledu'u mi nalju'i gunka
>
> Intended translation:
>
> A:Hey, Richard!                 B:What? Oh, hi.
> (The two mutually-followingly say the following:)
> -Where you going?               - Store.
> -Oh. What for?                  - Stuff.
> -What are you doing afterwards? - Dunno. Movie, perhaps.
> -Oh. What's on?                 - Dunno.
> -Oh. Can I come?                - Whatever.
> -Well I will.
> -Look Richard, why are you
>         being so antisocial?    - Why? You mocked me!
> -What? You gotta be kidding.
>  When?                          - Yesterday, in the cafe, You said,
>                                    so I heard, that I was careless at work.

Generally, I'm quite happy about your translation - there are just a
couple of points. The first one is that the whole genesis of writing
this dialogue was to get a very colloquial, laconic idiom - and the
observatives were part of that. I see no reason why a jbocru in that
sort of conversation would not say "zarci" and "vrici" (which, note,
are perfectly grammatical) rather than making sumti of them.
        I like "tu'a loi skina" (I hadn't understood "tu'a" before) but,
the same comment applies: you're putting extra verbiage in his mouth to
achieve a somehow 'more appropriate' grammatical form - and I challenge
whether this is necessary or desirable.
        "malckasu" was not what I meant - I think "termabla" is probably
better (I didn't check the exact definition of 'mabla')
        Your "ne'i le gusta" loses something that was deliberately
there, viz the rhetorical build-up of "ca ... .i ca ... .i ca" - or are
you going to tell me that that sort ofrhetorical effect can/should/must
be conveyed by UI?

>
> I tried to use a bit more variety in A's attitudinal response to B.  Using
> .ua as a simple acknowledgement of information seems inappropriate. je'e
> (acknowledgement vocative) is better.  But looking at the attitudinals
> gives another response:  In reality, this is not how such a conversation
> would go in Lojban.  Richard would have used rather more expressive
> attitudinals that would have either cut off the conversation early, or
> gotten to the crux of the matter:
>
> coiro'anai [Greetings, I'm feeling antisocial.] in response to the
> opening would have been direct.  Other attitudinals that might have been
> used by Richard include le'ocu'i (passive) in response to A's repeated
> questioning.  .o'enai (distance) and .o'ocu'i (mere tolerance) and
> .oi.i'anai (complaint+blame).  A could have asked using attitudinal
> questions .a'unaipei (Do you blame me?).  His repeated asking questions
> - (I ain't gonna let you off the conversation that easily) could include
> le'oro'a (socially aggressive) and .a'a.io.i'ipei (Attention+respect+lay
> it on me, bub!) would have gotten to the heart of the matter.  None of
> this distracting stuff about shopping and movies.  I'd be interested in
> seeing someone write up this dialog with a minimum of non-attitudinals
> might be used.  Probably the words "do", "ca prulamdei" and "ne'i le
> gusta" would be needed for the explanation, but the entire rest of the
> communicative exchange could (and probably should) take place at the
> attitudinal level.  Care to try, Colin?  Others?  I could use such an
> example for the attitudinal paper revision that I'll shortly be working
> on.

That is fascinating. I am well aware that I haven't got but a tiny fraction
of the possibilities of UI yet (though I am immediately sure that your
glossing some of them with "cu'i" and "nai" and others with "nai" only
reflects a limitation in English not Lojban - I don't think "coicu'i"
was in the cmavo list), and your suggestions above are lovely to think
about.
HOWEVER - I get into problems with your suggestion as other than a
literary device. I don't believe many people will ever use some of the
'negative' attitudinals - and certainly not two guys talking in the
street. Are you seriously supposing that the sort of person who goes
into a sulk, whose entire body language and gesture belies his insistent
"I'm OK", will suddenly start verbalising the feelings which he is
probably not even admitting he has?

kolin