[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
TECH: empathy in attitudinals (proposal)
As part of reviewing the cmavo list for inclusion in the dictionary,
I have been thinking about the current uses of attitudinals. As originally
specified, the attitudinal indicators of selma'o UI were solely to specify
the speaker's attitudes. Thus ".ui" expresses the speaker's happiness.
However, there has been an increasing pull toward allowing attitudinals,
suitably marked, to express other people's feelings as well. In particular,
"se'inai" has been employed as an attitudinal modifier for this purpose.
I find this use objectionable for two reasons: 1) It conflicts with the
original purpose of "se'i"/"se'inai" as described in the attitudinal paper;
2) support for emotional empathy should not be done with a negated
cmavo.
The original purpose of "se'i" was to indicate that the >object< (not the
subject) of the feeling was oneself rather than another. Thus, where "au"
means "desire", "ause'i" means "I want it" whereas "ause'inai" means
"I want you to have it". This function obviously conflicts with using
"ause'inai" to mean "You want it".
There exists a general mechanism for expressing complex attitudes: "sei"
followed by a bridi with limited syntax. With this machinery, "You want it"
becomes "sei do djica". However, it is often hard to decide exactly which
selbri should be used to express a particular attitude, and for the case of
attributing feelings to another, some additional support may be useful.
Some natural languages support this feature to a limited degree. I am
told that in Swedish the word "uffda" signifies ".oiro'o in empathy" -- you
say it not when you stub your toe but when you observe someone else do so.
Comments? Also, if an attitudinal modifier for empathy is called for, what
is the best cmavo? The current list of UNKs is:
bi'a bi'e (bo'a bo'e bo'i bo'o bo'u) bu'o
ce'e ce'u ci'a
do'i
ja'u ju'e
mi'i
na'a ne'e
pe'e po'o
re'u
te'i
va'e vu'o
zi'a zi'i zi'o zi'u
The set in parentheses is the last remaining fivesome, and will not lightly
be broken up.
In addition, here is a list of changes to UI since the attitudinal paper,
for those who track such things:
"lu'a" (loosely speaking) was based on "kluza", a malglico metaphor; it has
been replaced by "sa'e" (based on "satci") with meanings reversed.
"jo'a" was introduced as the opposite of "na'i": it specifies that the text
is correct as written, like English "[sic]". "na'inai" would mean the same
thing, but seemed too confusing as an affirmation.
"pau" is an optional signal at the beginning of a question, and was omitted
from the attitudinal paper in error. "paunai" signals a rhetorical question.
"kau" is attached to the focus of an indirect question: it does not connote
knowledge particularly.
"e'e" was changed to "competence - incompetence".
"re'e" was added as a new category modifier, parallel to the "ro'V" series;
it means "spiritual" and takes the place of old "e'e".
"vu'i" (virtue - sin) was changed to "vu'e" to match the new gismu "vrude".
"se'a" is a new attitudinal modifier meaning "self-sufficiency - dependency".
"be'u" is a new attitudinal modifier meaning "lack - satisfaction - satiation".
"ta'u" and "ta'unai" were switched in meaning.
The former term "observational" has been replaced with "evidential", to
agree with the literature and to avoid confusion with "observative".
"se'o" is a new evidential meaning "I know by internal experience (dream,
vision, or personal revelation)".
"ka'u" is a new evidential meaning "I know by cultural means".
"su'a" is now both an evidential and a discursive, displacing the old
discursive for "in general - in particular".
"ju'a" is a new vague evidential: "I state"; particularly useful in "ju'apei"
= "How do you know?"
"bi'u" signals new information: "lebi'u cribe" is a newly mentioned bear,
as distinct from "lebi'unai cribe" which is a bear we've heard about before.
--
John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.