Re: Attitudes and vocatives (was: Lojban recordings)

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

John Cowan responding to Jorge: Attitudes and vocatives (was: Lojban recordings)
>> Then what is the meaning of "acceptance" in that scale? It's very
>> confusing. Is it acceptance in the sense of "things are what they are,
>> nobody is to blame, nobody is responsible, it was an act of God"?
>
>I'm definitely out of my depth here.  Someone who was in on the attitudinal
>redesign needs to comment.  (lojbab, are you listening?  Ask Nora, please.)

By chance, i actually read this one.  In general, if someone wants my
opinion on something in real time, please send me a separate message
asking your question.  I am in general NOT reading Lojban List traffic,
unless something ctaches my eye.  My name embedded in a message is NOT
something that catches my eye, since too many people take my Name in
vain %^)

.i'a is intended, like the other attitudinals around it in the alpahbet,
to be one of the emotional nuances of "Yes", or "Yeah".  It need not
imply agreement or approval, and it is not a statement of certainty.
Thus it is intended to contrast with .ie - an acceptance, possibly
reluctant, of a truth with no implication of willing agreement or
approval.

Given the basic paradigm of acceptance of a predication, we then had to
figure the opposite end of the scale.  I think we felt that simple
non-acceptance overlapped the negatives of .ia, .ie and .i'e too much.
So we looked for a different axis.

What I think we have then is a dual attitudinal - .i'a and .i'anai both
to some extent "acknowledge or accept" a predication.  .i'acu'i on the
other hand probably does not indicate acceptance.

The contrast between .i'a and .i'anai then is one of responsibility/guilt.
.i'a accepts a predication, does not attribute responsibility/guilt to
others, and thus to some extent makes the speaker take on some shared
responsibility incumbent in "accepting" the statement (and in making it
- since the expression of the attitudinal at least by implication states
the predication as if it came from the speaker).  I don't see this as
that far removed from Jorge's "nobody is responsible", though I shy away
from "act of God" since that by implication DOES blame the deity - one
reason why acceptance does incur some personal responsibility.

.i'anai assigns blame for the predication away from the speaker -
possibly to a specific place of the predication that is labelled with
the attitudinal.

A soldier accepting an order to commit a war crime is generally
considered to be responsible for the crime through acquiescence.
".ai.i'anai" might then be used to accept an order while refusing
personal responsibility.  Similarly a person acting under duress might
use .i'anai to deny personal responsibility.  Indeed, I am not sure that
I would imagine .i'anai used except when the acceptance is under some
degree of duress.  I think, though, that it will come in handy for
bureaucrats and politicians who want to finger-point or CYA (cover their
asses), as well as, in Cowan's case attributing specific responsibility
to President Bush for the Gulf War (and thereby by implication
indicating that he himself had no responsibility in the matter).

I'm not sure whether one would use .i'anai to mark onesself when when
has a place in the predication.  Kinda like pointing the finger at
onesself.  As in:

I hope this clarifies rather than muddles the issue.
a'o tu'a lemi .i'anai selsku cu klina genai cfipu terciksi le nabmi

lojbab