Is there any real diffrence between hope (.a'o) and desire (.au)?

[.djo,is.]

It isn't apparent to me. If you desire something, don't you hope it will be true? The difference makes more sense in between pacna and djica, but why do we need two attitudinals?

If there is a difference, is there an example where you might say ".a'o .aunai broda" (or something similar)?

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:30:44PM -0700, .djo,is. wrote:
> It isn't apparent to me.

When you've figured that out, try your hand at {.i'e} vs. {.i'a}.

:)

-Robin

[la gleki]

I believe that hope and desire are 

1.human emotions 

2.can't be derived from anything else. They are semantic primes.

[Jorge Llambías]

You can only hope for something that you don't know for sure to be
true or false. For example, if you didn't go to the market you can
wish you had gone, but you can't hope you had gone. If I didn't go,
you can hope I did if you don't know whether I did or not. If you do
know that I did, you may be happy I did, or you may wish I hadn't, but
hope is out of the question.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[tijlan]

On 29 August 2012 06:18, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that hope and desire are
>
> 1.human emotions

Desire has obvious primitive evolutionary merits such as "moving the
body towards food or sexual counterparts" that can easily be found in
non-human life forms. It can be triggered by a simple structural state
of the body such as an empty stomach, which is quite different from
how love, pride, etc. would arise.

> 2.can't be derived from anything else. They are semantic primes.

Theorists disagree among themselves as to which emotions are to be
considered basic:

http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/basic%20emotions.htm

I'd say hope is more complex than desire. Desire doesn't necessarily
have a temporal implication as hope does. Future vindication would be
significant for hoping something but not for desiring something.


mu'o

[.djo,is.]

 That makes sense. Still, the attitudinals seem poorly organized.

[.djo,is.]

That actually makes more sense to me. You might say {.i'a .i'enai ko'a prami ko'e} to show that you disapprove of their love but aren't going to try to stop them. (Of course, I'm a jbonintadni. Is this interpretation correct?)

[MorphemeAddict]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe that hope and desire are 

1.human emotions 

2.can't be derived from anything else. They are semantic primes.

WANT ('desire') is probably a semantic prime/primitive. "Hope" can be explicated in terms of WANT and HAPPEN and GOOD THING. Wierzbicka provides explications of various emotion words in her books on NSM. 

stevo

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:30:44 AM UTC+4, .djo,is. wrote:

It isn't apparent to me. If you desire something, don't you hope it will be true? The difference makes more sense in between pacna and djica, but why do we need two attitudinals?

If there is a difference, is there an example where you might say ".a'o .aunai broda" (or something similar)?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/l1VSu8CkmhcJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[tijlan]

On 29 August 2012 23:48, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hope" can be explicated in terms of WANT and HAPPEN and GOOD THING.

In this case, GOOD THING can be considered as whatever that satisfies
WANT. Koha could hope that a giant asteroid hit the Earth and destroy
everything on it, which would satisfy koha's want but not necessarily
serve others well.


mu'o

[tijlan]

It seems to me that many instances of {a'o} can be rephrased as {ba'a .au}:

.a'o do klama
I hope that you would come.

ba'a .au do klama
I anticipate* & desire that you would come.

(* In the evidential sense of "to see what might happen", not the
emotionally loaded sense of "to expect with pleasure".)

From my understanding, {ba'a} refers to the temporal location of
whatever information source that would prove or disprove the bridi
(hence its evidential status), not to the temporal location of the
event described by the bridi (for which there are PU). By {ba'a do
klama}, I'm saying that the truth of {do klama} would be revealed to
me, if at all, in the future (i.e. I'm yet to come across verificatory
information); and, by adding {au}, I'm expressing my desire for {do
klama}. (Note also that {ba'a} doesn't adequately express subjective
certainty or objective probability, for which there are {ju'o} and
{la'a}.) Then, {ba'a} is compatible with non-future events, which is
the case of "hope" too, as in "I hope they are already working on it",
which in my opinion can be translated using {ba'a .au}.

{au} seems intrinsic to {a'o}, and I can't think of a meaningful case
of {a'o .aunai broda}, to answer Joey's question. (But {a'onai .au
broda} is easily conceivable. When there's no hope for your coming but
I still desire that, I can say {a'onai .au do klama}.)


mu'o

[la gleki]

Can't we clearly define UI in terms of {sei broda} after all?

So you are saying that {.a'o}={sei kanpe je djica}, right?

Can you also derive {.ai} from {.au}?

 

mu'o

[la .lindar.]

Whether something is redundant at this stage is irrelevant. It is an interesting point, but has already been discussed to death. Why not un-left or male-ette like Esperanto? I agree, though, that hope isn't perfectly base like want. You make a very good point.

So we don't lose track of agreements like these, can we develop an archival system? This could be a 'related articles' page for these words. ".a'o can be expressed as ba'a .au with a similar but not perfectly parallel meaning." might be a good summary.

My first thought is to make a wiktionary-style wiki, but y'all are better with that than I so I shall leave it to the experts.

[la gleki]

If {.a'o} ={ba'a .au} then it just can be added to jvs in Lojban to Lojban section.

[John E. Clifford]

Aside from the oddity of defining an emotional expression, this seems wrong to me even as an example.{ba'a} is an evidential, a shorthand reason for accepting a claim.  It is, admittedly, a weak one, even if we throw in the speaker's expertise in the matter, but it still starts a case for accepting the following, even tentatively.  But {a'o} doesn't introduce a claim at all, let alone suggests reasons for accepting it.  If anything, it suggests (pragmatics at work) that the sentence following is likely to be false (just as "fear" suggests that follows is likely to be true).  I also doubt that the neutral "what might happen" is a reasonable reading for {ba'a}, give the more definite readings of the other points on it's scale.

Sent from my iPad

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/76PHZo4khYEJ.

[tijlan]

On 30 August 2012 17:32, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't we clearly define UI in terms of {sei broda} after all?
> So you are saying that {.a'o}={sei kanpe je djica}, right?

{a'o} and {kanpe je djica} seem to generally mean the same kind of emotion, yes.

Some notes:
{ui} is a direct expression of happiness, whereas {(zo'e) gleki} is a
descriptive statement that someone feels / felt / will feel happiness
-- same emotion, different functions. Also, with {ui}, the experiencer
is the speaker by default; with {sei gleki}, it can be non-speakers.
{sei gleki} can be used to translate adverbial stuff, such as
"happily", whose explicit or implicit subject (x1) can be other than
the speaker. So, the {sei broda} form cannot always substitute for or
define UI.

> Can you also derive {.ai} from {.au}?

Does {ai} always imply {au}? Probably not. One can intend but not want
to pay a tax.
Does {au} always imply {ai}? Probably not. One can want but not intend
to go to Mars.


mu'o

[la gleki]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 4:03:52 PM UTC+4, tijlan wrote:

On 30 August 2012 17:32, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't we clearly define UI in terms of {sei broda} after all?
> So you are saying that {.a'o}={sei kanpe je djica}, right?

{a'o} and {kanpe je djica} seem to generally mean the same kind of emotion, yes.

Some notes:
{ui} is a direct expression of happiness, whereas {(zo'e) gleki} is a
descriptive statement that someone feels / felt / will feel happiness
-- same emotion, different functions. Also, with {ui}, the experiencer
is the speaker by default; with {sei gleki}, it can be non-speakers.
{sei gleki} can be used to translate adverbial stuff, such as
"happily", whose explicit or implicit subject (x1) can be other than
the speaker. So, the {sei broda} form cannot always substitute for or
define UI.

 

Well, I guess {.ei=sei bilga} not {.ei=sei mi bilga} ?

I want all UI-cmavo translated to {sei ko'a broda} form.

[triliyn]

I've always thought of {sei} as introducing a comment about the text without regard for the meaning of the text. For example, you could say {broda sei mu da lerfu}, and {broda sei xlali} should be taken to mean "I think {broda} was a bad word choice".

[Jacob Errington]

Although it isn't completely true, I like to think of the main-bridi being a vague sumti of the sei-bridi, as if it were captured inside a ka or a du'u.

Also, {sei} attaches to the whole bridi, not just the word before it, which makes it very difficult to get at the subtle meanings like {.i co'a .ai broda} or {do .e ui mi broda}.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/7bozf9oQjSwJ.

[John E Clifford]

I suppose the idea here is {sei} as a sort of stage direction, the usual "Alice said" supplemented now by comments about Alice's presumed state of mind.  Using this for {a'o} and the like seems misguided, because 1) they are not metalinguistic, but part of the speech stream -- not someone els'e remark, but the speakers expression; 2) they are not truthvalued, as the {sei} comments are.

---

From: triliyn <trillio...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any real diffrence between hope (.a'o) and desire (.au)?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/7bozf9oQjSwJ.

[la gleki]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 6:44:34 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

I suppose the idea here is {sei} as a sort of stage direction, the usual "Alice said" supplemented now by comments about Alice's presumed state of mind.  Using this for {a'o} and the like seems misguided, because 1) they are not metalinguistic, but part of the speech stream -- not someone els'e remark, but the speakers expression; 2) they are not truthvalued, as the {sei} comments are.

Isn't {sei} the same as loglandic {{soi crano}} etc.?

[la .lindar.]

.a'o isn't kanpe je djica, it'n pacna. Has everybody forgotten about pacna?

[la gleki]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:26:48 PM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:

.a'o isn't kanpe je djica, it'n pacna. Has everybody forgotten about pacna?

Of course not. It looks like we are trying to split "hope" into smaller elements.

[John E Clifford]

Looks like this has already been done in the entry for *{kanpe}.   It is not clear to me how this compound predicate is related to the attitudinal: it describes the attitude expressed?  They obviously don't mean the same thing.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 10:40 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any real diffrence between hope (.a'o) and desire (.au)?

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:26:48 PM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:

.a'o isn't kanpe je djica, it'n pacna. Has everybody forgotten about pacna?

Of course not. It looks like we are trying to split "hope" into smaller elements.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/VWGKxN7mudcJ.

[Luke Bergen]

good point.  If au and ai both have pretty much exact bridi equivalents, and those bridi have pretty much exact english equivalents it doesn't seem like we're necessarily talking about a lojban question any more.  More like a psychology question, which is certainly still interesting to listen to :)

On Sep 1, 2012 11:26 AM, "la .lindar." <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

.a'o isn't kanpe je djica, it'n pacna. Has everybody forgotten about pacna?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/jN945nypTh0J.

[la gleki]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:17:25 PM UTC+4, pafcribe wrote:

good point.  If au and ai both have pretty much exact bridi equivalents, and those bridi have pretty much exact english equivalents it doesn't seem like we're necessarily talking about a lojban question any more.  More like a psychology question, which is certainly still interesting to listen to :)

I think this topic is really not about lojban.

May be about semantic prims but definitely i'll never stop using {.a'o}

[John E Clifford]

Good move!  Semantic primitives play no significant role in Lojban and, if the point of all this is to get to a primitive list of attitudes, then it is a misguided project from a Lojbanic point of view.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:32 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any real diffrence between hope (.a'o) and desire (.au)?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/OICjZI-uyHoJ.

[tijlan]

On 31 August 2012 18:23, John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aside from the oddity of defining an emotional expression, this seems wrong
> to me even as an example.{ba'a} is an evidential, a shorthand reason for
> accepting a claim. It is, admittedly, a weak one, even if we throw in the
> speaker's expertise in the matter, but it still starts a case for accepting
> the following, even tentatively.

For weakly accepting or presenting a claim, there are {ju'oru'e},
{la'aru'e}, and some others. From my perspective, {ba'a, ba'acu'i,
ba'anai} are more like evidential 'modifiers', used to mark off the
temporality of whatever epistemological basis of a statement. To
emphasize the differences:

ba'anai lo dzipo cu melbi
I have since before been able to claim that Antarctica is beautiful.

ba'acu'i lo dzipo cu melbi
I now am able to claim that Antarctica is beautiful.

ba'a lo dzipo cu melbi
I might in the future be able to claim that Antarctica is beautiful.

> I also doubt that
> the neutral "what might happen" is a reasonable reading for {ba'a}, give the
> more definite readings of the other points on it's scale.

The difference in definiteness may be due to the variation in
actuality (of whatever epistemological basis):

ba'anai -- evidence was obtained (definite basis); 'I remember'
ba'acu'i -- evidence is being obtained (developing basis); 'I experience'
ba'a -- evidence might be obtained (indefinite basis); 'I anticipate'

If by "neutral" you mean "not specifying the likelihood of the
statement being true", I think that's how {ba'a} should work,
especially to the extent that we have other UIs to specify such (if I
wanted to attitudinally indicate that something shall turn out to be
the case, I'd insert somethingn like {ju'o} rather than simply
{ba'a}).

> But {a'o} doesn't introduce a claim at
> all, let alone suggests reasons for accepting it. If anything, it suggests
> (pragmatics at work) that the sentence following is likely to be false (just
> as "fear" suggests that follows is likely to be true).

If an athlete's odds of winning a gold medal were 80%, couldn't her
supporters still hope she would win? Conversely, if the odds were 20%,
could they hope she would win? I think it depends. Factors other than
likelihood can affect one's threshold for hope. The success of a 2.5
billion dollar rover mission to a red planet may be more hope-worthy
than the success of a 2.5 dollar mission to find a four-leaf clover in
a big garden, even if these were equally feasible.

{a'o} is felt toward something that the speaker wants to be true but
is yet to know to be so. I agree that {a'o} doesn't bear a
truth-claim. Why not? Hope emerges in a certain kind of
temporal-epistemological relation between the mind & the object, such
that the mind is yet to come across evidence for the object. I cannot
hope X if I remember X (ba'anai). I cannot hope X if I experiencce X
(ba'acu'i). I can hope X if I anticipate X (ba'a). And of course
anticipation doesn't introduce a claim. What {a'o} introduces, in
addition to an emotion, seems to be evidentiality.


mu'o

[la gleki]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 9:44:06 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Good move!  Semantic primitives play no significant role in Lojban and, if the point of all this is to get to a primitive list of attitudes, then it is a misguided project from a Lojbanic point of view.

 

Who will discuss semantics primes if not us? Any forum you are aware of? I'm afraid they are discussed nowhere.

loi sapyvalsi .uu poi me lai semantikprim

[la .lindar.]

Who will discuss semantics primes if not us? Any forum you are aware of? I'm afraid they are discussed nowhere.

Guaspi? Any other conlang group? University level linguistics courses? Gismu aren't primes, the set of UI aren't meant to be primes, and nothing in the language is meant to be the most basic set of anything. We *really* need to hammer that into everybody and start adopting a policy of using what's there instead of reinventing the wheel. Look, and I mean seriously and earnestly look, for a solution using what is already available to you. If it isn't a problem, don't fix it, and if you absolutely are completely unable to do it with the current grammar, we'll talk then. 

[la gleki]

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:07:24 PM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:

Who will discuss semantics primes if not us? Any forum you are aware of? I'm afraid they are discussed nowhere.

Guaspi? Any other conlang group? University level linguistics courses? Gismu aren't primes, the set of UI aren't meant to be primes, and nothing in the language is meant to be the most basic set of anything. We *really* need to hammer that into everybody and start adopting a policy of using what's there instead of reinventing the wheel. Look, and I mean seriously and earnestly look, for a solution using what is already available to you. If it isn't a problem, don't fix it, and if you absolutely are completely unable to do it with the current grammar, we'll talk then. 

What is more, in this case I have a clear feeling that {.a'o}  *is* a prime. But probably it's only my philosophy.

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 02/09/2012 18:17:

> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:07:24 PM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:
>
> Who will discuss semantics primes if not us? Any forum you are aware of? I'm afraid they are discussed nowhere.
>
>
> Guaspi? Any other conlang group?

Engelang is the best place. You might find only a couple of people interested in discussing semantic primitives from a conlanging perspective, but that'sstill the aptest place.

> What is more, in this case I have a clear feeling that {.a'o} *is* a
> prime. But probably it's only my philosophy.

A couple of people (xorxes? selpa'i?) have pointed out that hope is desideration when the desiderator does not know whether the desideratum is the case. So although hope is a cognitively and experientially salient mindstate, it is not primitive.

--And.

[John E Clifford]

Is Engelang still functioning?  I haven't seen anything for more than a year.  Or is it in a new locale?

---

From: And Rosta <and....@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:49 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any real diffrence between hope (.a'o) and desire (.au)?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[MorphemeAddict]

Lojban isn't meant to be based on semantic primes, but semantic primes are useful in discussing the meaning of the words, just as with any other language. That's the whole point of NSM. 

stevo

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Who will discuss semantics primes if not us? Any forum you are aware of? I'm afraid they are discussed nowhere.

Guaspi? Any other conlang group? University level linguistics courses? Gismu aren't primes, the set of UI aren't meant to be primes, and nothing in the language is meant to be the most basic set of anything. We *really* need to hammer that into everybody and start adopting a policy of using what's there instead of reinventing the wheel. Look, and I mean seriously and earnestly look, for a solution using what is already available to you. If it isn't a problem, don't fix it, and if you absolutely are completely unable to do it with the current grammar, we'll talk then. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/FFNO8To9DIUJ.

[And Rosta]

John E Clifford, On 02/09/2012 21:11:

> Is Engelang still functioning? I haven't seen anything for more than
> a year. Or is it in a new locale?

Engelang has been brilliant for the last few weeks. Incredibly, a really appealing Logban3 is rapidly coming into being there; I just wish these discussions had begun twenty years ago. Thanks to Gleki Arkoxuna really, that they finally kicked off. Thanks to xorxes, the Logban3 is looking very neat, very sleek.

Anybody interested in Logban3 is warmly invited to join the discussion there.

I've checked & found you're subscribed to Engelang with your clifford-j at sbcglobal address, which is bouncing. To subscribe from another address, just email <engelang-...@yahoogroups.com>.

--And.