ba'e

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>The problem with ba'e appearing afterwards is that it is ambiguous as to
>interactions with other attitudinals.  Would klama ba'e .ui mean that
>we were emphasizing and happy about klama, or that we were emphasizing
>klama and happy about the fact that we were emphasizing it.

Does klama pe'i ui mean that we are opining and happy about klama,
or that we are opining klama and happy about the fact that we are
opining it?

Of course, in both cases the first interpretation would be best.

>Now perhaps you analytical types can see some way to resolve this, but
>of course attitudinals aren't supposed to be analyzed, but merely
expressed.

You may not analyze them at the time you use it, but if you never analyze
them how will you ever know how to use it?

>Emphasis, on the other hand, seemed to us to be a more metalinguistic
>function, one that would occur with rational forethought more often than
not.

More metalinguistic than pe'i, ja'o, na'i, zu'u, etc, etc? I don't see why.

co'o mi'e xorxes