Re: A challenge

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

>>I don't know about that "re'inai", how about "ta'a" 'interruption'.

>Works too.  I was using re'inai to mean "I don't want to hear from you; not
>ready to process your input.  Shut your trap."

I imagine that that is "re'inai" is more like "Hold on a minute" that one
would say before one is able to pay attention to the conversation.  There
should not be any implied abruptness or rudeness, these need some additional
modifiers such as "le'o" or "ga'i".

>>That starting to look a lot better.  Now if the "ta'a" can be eliminated then
>>all the cmavo can be squished together and scoped with "fu'e... fu'o" and
>>we're there.

>You can still squish them together; why can't you?  Because of the vowels?
>"ta'a.o'edai" is as much a compound cmavo as ".o'edai" is.

I'm worried about removing the ".i".  I think some strange things happen when
attitudinals are attached together, but the relevant paper doesn't
actually prescribe what that should be.  The way I see it is that there
are only things that can happen when two attitudes come together.  The first is
that the attitudes are both being expressed, an "and" operation; the second
is that the second is the attitude about the first.

Thus:
    .i   .o'unaidai.uinai
      Stress-empathy<-sadness
    I am sad that you are stressed-out.

    .i .o'unaidai    .uinai
      Stress-empathy sadness
 You're stressed-out and I'm unhappy.

The two could be differentiated by stress:
    .O'unaidai.uinai v. O'unaidai .UInai

There still remains the problem of how vocatives interact with attitudinals.
Does ".i ta'a.o'edai" mean "Excuse-me<-you-are-near" or "Excuse-me be-near".
Again there could be ".i TA'a.o'edai" v. ".i TA'a .O'edai".


>>.i lu .oicu'iro'odai.uifu'e.a'acaidai.o'ero'odaifu'o.e'uga'i li'u

>"get the hell over here" may be more le'o than ga'i.

Yes, but in this case I think it's rudeness more than aggression.

>>I call this a "jalma'o", collide-structure-word or blat-cmavo.

>I'd call it a ma'ojvo (argh, been WAY too long; does that have to be
>ma'orjvo?): a cmavo compound.

It is "ma'ojvo" the "jv" means it doesn't fall apart.  A "lujvo" is precisely
a Lojbanic word made of rafsi and gismu.  The cmavo are words by themselves.

ni'o co'omi'e dn.