Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Jorge J. Llambías wrote:

> > This is a good point.  Why has the scope of attitudinals been left
> > ambiguous?  I reckon there are only two possible interpretations:
> > 'about' and 'and'.  There needs to be a convention for choosing
> >  which is wanted.
> 
> There should be a convention, but I'm not sure how much the issue
> has been explored. I think that the "and" interpretation is what the refgram
> suggests, but then the other one seems more useful...

The refgram explicitly says that either interpretation is possible,
depending on circumstances.  The reason for leaving the matter
vague is that attitudinals are partially subconscious and non-intentional;
in principle, you do not *decide* what attitudinal to use to express your
feelings, you express *directly* with an attitudinal.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)