Chapter 13
Oooh! Arrgh! Ugh! Yecch! Attitudinal and Emotional Indicators

1. What are attitudinal indicators?

1.1)  John is coming.

In Lojban, everything that can be spoken can also be written. Therefore, these tones of voice must be represented by explicit words known as ``attitudinal indicators'', or just ``attitudinals''. This rule seems awkward and clunky to English-speakers at first, but is an essential part of the Lojbanic way of doing things.

The simplest way to use attitudinal indicators is to place them at the beginning of a text. In that case, they express the speaker's prevailing attitude. Here are some examples, correlated with the attitudes mentioned following Example 1.1:

1.2)  .ui la djan klama
    [Whee!] John is coming!

1.3)  .uu la djan klama
    [Alas!] John is coming.

1.4)  .a'o la djan klama
    [Hopefully] John is coming.

1.5)  .ue la djan klama
    [Wow!] John is coming!

1.6)  .ianai la djan klama
    [Nonsense!] John is coming.

Attitudinals can also be compound cmavo, of the types explained in Sections 4-8; Example 1.6 illustrates one such possibility, the compound attitudinal ``.ianai''. In attitudinals, ``-nai'' indicates polar negation: the opposite of the simple attitudinal without the ``-nai''. Thus, as you might suppose, ``.ia'' expresses belief, since ``.ianai'' expresses disbelief.

In addition to the attitudinals, there are other classes of indicators: intensity markers, emotion categories, attitudinal modifiers, observationals, and discursives. All of them are grammatically equivalent, which is why they are treated together in this chapter.

Every indicator behaves in more or less the same way with respect to the grammar of the rest of the language. In general, one or more indicators can be inserted at the beginning of an utterance or after any word. Indicators at the beginning apply to the whole utterance; otherwise, they apply to the word that they follow. More details can be found in Section 9.

Throughout this chapter, tables of indicators will be written in four columns. The first column is the cmavo itself. The second column is a corresponding English word, not necessarily a literal translation. The fourth column represents the opposite of the second column, and shows the approximate meaning of the attitudinal when suffixed with ``-nai''. The third column, which is sometimes omitted, indicates a neutral point between the second and fourth columns, and shows the approximate meaning of the attitudinal when it is suffixed with ``-cu'i''. The cmavo ``cu'i'' belongs to selma'o CAI, and is explained more fully in Section 4.

One flaw that the English glosses are particularly subject to is that in English it is often difficult to distinguish between expressing your feelings and talking about them, particularly with the limited resource of the written word. So the gloss for ``.ui'' should not really be ``happiness'' but some sound or tone that expresses happiness. However, there aren't nearly enough of those that have unambiguous or obvious meanings in English to go around for all the many, many different emotions Lojban speakers can readily express.

Many indicators of CV'V form are loosely derived from specific gismu. The gismu should be thought of as a memory hook, not an equivalent of the cmavo. Such gismu are shown in this chapter between square brackets, thus: [gismu].

2. Pure emotion indicators

   .ua discovery           confusion
    .u'a    gain                loss
    .ue surprise    no surprise expectation
    .u'e    wonder              commonplace
    .ui happiness           unhappiness
    .u'i    amusement           weariness
    .uo completion          incompleteness
    .u'o    courage     timidity    cowardice
    .uu     pity                cruelty
    .u'u    repentance  lack of regret  innocence

2.1)  .ua mi facki fi le mi mapku
    [Eureka!] I found my hat!
        [emphasizes the discovery of the hat]

2.2)   .u'a mi facki fi le mi mapku
    [Gain!] I found my hat!
        [emphasizes the obtaining of the hat]

2.3)  .ui mi facki fi le mi mapku
    [Yay!] I found my hat!
        [emphasizes the feeling of happiness]

2.4)   .uo mi facki fi le mi mapku
    [At last!] I found my hat!
        [emphasizes that the finding is complete]

2.5)  .uu do cortu
    [Pity!] You feel-pain.
        [expresses speaker's sympathy]

2.6)   .u'u do cortu
    [Repentance!] You feel-pain
        [expresses that speaker feels guilty]

In particular, both ``.uu'' and ``.u'u'' can be translated into English as ``I'm sorry''; the difference between these two attitudes frequently causes confusion among English-speakers who use this phrase, leading to responses like ``Why are you sorry? It's not your fault!''

It is important to realize that ``.uu'', and indeed all attitudinals, are meant to be used sincerely, not ironically. In English, the exclamation ``Pity!'' is just as likely to be ironically intended, but this usage does not extend to Lojban. Lying with attitudinals is (normally) as inappropriate to Lojban discourse as any other kind of lying: perhaps worse, because misunderstood emotions can cause even greater problems than misunderstood statements.

The following examples display the effects of ``nai'' and ``cu'i'' when suffixed to an attitudinal:

2.7)  .ue la djan. klama
    [Surprise!] John comes.

2.8)   .uecu'i la djan. klama
    [Ho hum.] John comes.

2.9)   .uenai la djan. klama
    [Expected!] John comes.

In Example 2.9, John's coming has been anticipated by the speaker. In Example 2.7 and Example 2.8, no such anticipation has been made, but in Example 2.7 the lack-of-anticipation goes no further --- in Example 2.8, it amounts to actual surprise.

It is not possible to firmly distinguish the pure emotion words beginning with ``o'' or ``i'' from those beginning with ``u'', but in general they represent more complex, more ambivalent, or more difficult emotions.

   .o'a    pride       modesty     shame
    .o'e    closeness   detachment  distance
    .oi complaint/pain  doing OK    pleasure
    .o'i    caution     boldness    rashness
    .o'o    patience    mere tolerance  anger
    .o'u    relaxation  composure   stress

Here are some examples:

2.10)    .oi la djan. klama
    [Complaint!] John is coming.

Here the speaker is distressed or discomfited over John's coming. The word ``.oi'' is derived from the Yiddish word ``oy'' of similar meaning. It is the only cmavo with a Yiddish origin.

2.11)    .o'onai la djan. klama
    [Anger!] John is coming!

Here the speaker feels anger over John's coming.

2.12)    .o'i la djan. klama
    [Beware!] John is coming.

Here there is a sense of danger in John's arrival.

2.13)    .o'ecu'i la djan. klama
    [Detachment!] John is coming.

2.14)    .o'u la djan. klama
    [Phew!] John is coming.

In Example 2.13 and Example 2.14, John's arrival is no problem: in the former example, the speaker feels emotional distance from the situation; in the latter example, John's coming is actually a relief of some kind.

The pure emotion indicators beginning with ``i'' are those which could not be fitted into the ``u'' or ``o'' groups because there was a lack of room, so they are a mixed lot. ``.ia'', ``.i'a'', ``.ie'', and ``.i'e'' do not appear here, as they belong in Section 3 instead.

   .ii fear        nervousness security
    .i'i    togetherness            privacy
    .io respect             disrespect
    .i'o    appreciation            envy
    .iu     love        no love lost    hatred
    .i'u    familiarity         mystery

Here are some examples:

2.15)    .ii smacu
    [Fear!] [Observative:] a-mouse
    Eek!  A mouse!

2.16)    la djan. .iu klama
    John [love!] is coming.

2.17)    la djan. .ionai klama
    John [disrespect!] is coming.

Example 2.16 and Example 2.17 use attitudinals that follow ``la djan.'' rather than being at the beginning of the sentence. This form means that the attitude is attached to John rather than the event of his coming; the speaker loves or disrespects John specifically. Compare:

2.18)    la djan. klama .iu
    John is-coming [love!]

Example 2.17 is a way of swearing at John: you could translate it as ``That good-for-nothing John is coming.''

3. Propositional attitude indicators

As mentioned at the beginning of Section 2, attitudinals may be divided into two groups, the pure emotion indicators explained in that section, and a contrasting group which may be called the ``propositional attitude indicators''. These indicators establish an internal, hypothetical world which the speaker is reacting to, distinct from the world as it really is. Thus we may be expressing our attitude towards ``what the world would be like if ...'', or more directly stating our attitude towards making the potential world a reality.

In general, the bridi paraphrases of pure emotions look (in English) something like ``I'm going to the market, and I'm happy about it''. The emotion is present with the subject of the primary claim, but is logically independent of it. Propositional attitudes, though, look more like ``I intend to go to the market'', where the main claim is logically subordinate to the intention: I am not claiming that I am actually going to the market, but merely that I intend to.

There is no sharp distinction between attitudinals beginning with ``a'' and those beginning with ``e''; however, the original intent (not entirely realized due to the need to cram too many attitudes into too little space) was to make the members of the ``a''-series the purer, more attitudinal realizers of a potential world, while the members of the ``e''-series were more ambivalent or complex about the speaker's intention with regard to the predication. The relationship between the ``a''-series and the ``e''-series is similar to that between the ``u''-series and the ``o''-series, respectively. A few propositional attitude indicators overflowed into the ``i''-series as well.

In fact, the entire distinction between pure emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that ...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning ``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points. Attitudinals are the part of Lojban most distant from the ``logical language'' aspect.

Here is the list of propositional attitude indicators grouped by initial letter, starting with those beginning with ``a'':

   .a'a    attentive   inattentive avoiding
    .a'e    alertness           exhaustion
    .ai intent      indecision  refusal
    .a'i    effort      no real effort  repose
    .a'o    hope                despair
    .au desire      indifference    reluctance
    .a'u    interest    no interest repulsion

Some examples (of a parental kind):

3.1)  .a'a do zgana le veltivni
    [attentive] you observe the television-receiver.
    I'm noticing that you are watching the TV.

3.2)  .a'enai do ranji bacru
    [exhaustion] you continuously utter.
    I'm worn out by your continuous talking.

3.3)  .ai mi benji do le ckana
    [intent] I transfer you to-the bed.
    I'm putting you to bed.

3.4)  .a'i mi ba gasnu
        le nu do cikna binxo
    [effort] I [future] am-the-actor-in
        the event-of you awake-ly become.
    It'll be a real pain for me to wake you up.

3.5)  .a'o mi kanryze'a
        ca le bavlamdei
    [hope] I am-health-increased at-time
        the future-adjacent-day.
    I hope I feel better tomorrow!

3.6)  .au mi sipna
    [desire] I sleep.
    I want to sleep.

3.7)  a'ucu'i do pante
    [no interest] you complain
    I have no interest in your complaints.

Splitting off the attitude into an indicator allows the regular bridi grammar to do what it does best: express the relationships between concepts that are intended, desired, hoped for, or whatever. Rephrasing these examples to express the attitude as the main selbri would make for unacceptably heavyweight grammar.

Here are the propositional attitude indicators beginning with ``e'', which stand roughly in the relation to those beginning with ``a'' as the pure-emotion indicators beginning with ``o'' do to those beginning with ``u'' --- they are more complex or difficult:

   .e'a    permission          prohibition
    .e'e    competence          incompetence
    .ei obligation          freedom
    .e'i    constraint  independence    resistance to constraint
    .e'o    request             negative request
    .e'u    suggestion  no suggestion   warning

3.8)  .e'a do sazri le karce
    [permission] You drive the car.
    Sure, you can drive the car.

3.9)  e'e mi lifri tu'a do
    [competence] I experience something-related-to you
    I feel up to dealing with you.

3.10)    .ei mi tisna
        le karce ctilyvau
    [obligation] I fill
        the car-type-of petroleum-container.
    I should fill the car's gas tank.

3.11)    .e'o ko ko kurji
    [request] You-imperative of-you-imperative take-care.
    Please take care of yourself!

3.12)    .e'u do klama le panka
    [suggestion] You go to-the park.
    I suggest going to the park.

Finally, the propositional attitude indicators beginning with ``i'', which are the overflow from the other sets:

   .ia belief      skepticism  disbelief
    .i'a    acceptance          blame
    .ie agreement           disagreement
    .i'e    approval    non-approval    disapproval

Still more examples (much, much later):

3.13)    .ianai do pu pensi le nu tcica mi
    [disbelief] You [past] think the event-of deceiving me.
    I can't believe you thought you could fool me.

3.14)    do .i'anai na xruti do le zdani
    You [blame] did-not return you to-the house
    I blame you for not coming home.

3.15)    .ie mi na cusku
        lu'e le tcika
        be le nu xruti
    [agreement] I did-not express
        a-symbol-for the time-of-day
        of the event-of (you return)
    It's true I didn't tell you when to come back.

3.16)    .i'enai do .i'e zukte
    [disapproval] you [approval] act
    I don't approve of what you did, but I approve of you.

To indicate that an attitudinal discussed in this section is not meant to indicate a propositional attitude, the simplest expedient is to split the attitudinal off into a separate sentence. Thus, a version of Example 3.8 which actually claimed that the listener was or would be driving the car might be:

3.17)    do sazri le karce .i e'a
    You drive the car.  [Permission].
    You're driving (or will drive) the car,
        and that's fine.

4. Attitudes as scales

     cai     sai     ru'e   cu'i   nairu'e naisai  naicai
    [carmi] [tsali] [ruble] [cumki]

Much of this system is optional. You can express an attitude without a scale indicator, if you don't want to stop and think about how strongly you feel. Indeed, for most attitudinals, we've found that either no scalar value is used, or ``cai'' is used to indicate especially high intensity. Less often, ``ru'e'' is used for a recognizably weak intensity, and ``cu'i'' is used in response to the attitudinal question ``pei'' (see Section 10) to indicate that the emotion is not felt.

The following shows the variations resulting from intensity variation:

4.1)  .ei
    I ought to
    (a non-specific obligation)

4.2)  .eicai
    I shall/must
    (an intense obligation or requirement, possibly
        a formal one)

4.3)  .eisai
    I should
    (a strong obligation or necessity, possibly an
        implied but not formal requirement)

4.4)  .eiru'e
    I might
    (a weak obligation --- in English often mixed
        with permission and desire)

4.5)  .eicu'i
    No matter
    (no particular obligation)

4.6)  .einai
    I need not
    (a non-obligation)

5. The space of emotions

The existence of 39 scales highlights the complexity of emotion. We also aren't bound to the 39. There are modifiers described in Section 6 that multiply the set of scales by an order of magnitude. You can also have mixed feelings on a scale, which might be expressed by ``cu'i'', but could also be expressed by using both the ``positive'' and ``negative'' scale emotions at once. One expression of ``fortitude'' might be ``.ii.iinai'' --- fear coupled with security.

Uttering one or more attitudinals to express an emotion reflects several things. We will tend to utter emotions in their immediate order of importance to us. We feel several emotions at once, and our expression reflects these emotions simultaneously, although their order of importance to us is also revealing --- of our attitude towards our attitude, so to speak. There is little analysis necessary; for those emotions you feel, you express them; the ``vector sum'' naturally expresses the result. This is vital to their nature as attitudinals --- if you had to stop and think about them, or to worry about grammar, they wouldn't be emotions but rationalizations.

People have proposed that attitudinals be expressed as bridi just like everything else; but emotions aren't logical or analytical --- saying ``I'm awed'' is not the same as saying ``Wow!!!''. The Lojban system is intended to give the effects of an analytical system without the thought involved. Thus, you can simply feel in Lojban.

A nice feature of this design is that you can be simple or complex, and the system works the same way. The most immediate benefit is in learning. You only need to learn a couple of the scale words and a couple of attitude words, and you're ready to express your emotions Lojbanically. As you learn more, you can express your emotions more thoroughly and more precisely, but even a limited vocabulary offers a broad range of expression.

6. Emotional categories

   ro'a    social      asocial     antisocial
    ro'e    mental              mindless
    ro'i    emotional           denying emotion
    ro'o    physical            denying physical
    ro'u    sexual              sexual abstinence
    re'e    spiritual   secular     sacrilegious

   ro'a    hands above head    social
    ro'e    hands on head       intellectual
    ro'i    hands on heart      emotional
    ro'o    hands on belly      physical
    ro'u    hands on groin      sexual
    re'e    hands moving around spiritual

7. Attitudinal modifiers

   ga'i    hauteur/rank    equal rank  meekness/lack of rank
            [galtu]
    le'o    aggressive  passive     defensive
    vu'e    virtue (zabna)          sin (mabla)
            [vrude]
    se'i    self-orientation        other-orientation
            [sevzi]
    ri'e    release     restraint   control
            [zifre]
    fu'i    with help      without help with opposition
        easily              with difficulty
            [frili]
    be'u     lack/need  presence/satisfaction   satiation
    se'a     self-sufficiency           dependency
            [sevzi]

The cmavo ``ga'i'' expresses the scale used to indicate condescension or polite deference; it is not respect in general, which is ``.io''. Whatever it is attached to is marked as being below (for ``ga'i'') or above (for ``ga'inai'') the speaker's rank or social position. Note that it is always the referent, not the speaker or listener, who is so marked: in order to mark the listener, the listener must appear in the sentence, as with ``doi ga'inai'', which can be appended to a statement addressed to a social inferior.

7.1)  ko ga'inai
        nenri klama le mi zdani
    you-imperative [low-rank!]
        enter-type-of come-to my house.
    I would be honored if you would enter my residence.

7.2)  ko ga'icu'i
        nenri klama le mi zdani
    you-imperative [equal-rank!]
        enter-type-of come-to my house.
    Come on in to my place.

7.3)   ko ga'i
        nenri klama le mi zdani
    you-imperative [high-rank!]
        enter-type-of come-to my house.
    You! Get inside!

Since ``ga'i'' expresses the relative rank of the speaker and the referent, it does not make much sense to attach it to ``mi'', unless the speaker is using ``mi'' to refer to a group (as in English ``we''), or a past or future version of himself with a different rank.

It is also possible to attach ``ga'i'' to a whole bridi, in which case it expresses the speaker's superiority to the event the bridi refers to:

7.4)  ga'i le xarju pu citka
    [high-rank!] the pig [past] eats
    The pig ate (which is an event beneath my notice).

The cmavo ``le'o'' represents the scale of aggressiveness. We seldom overtly recognize that we are feeling aggressive or defensive, but perhaps in counseling sessions, a psychologist might encourage someone to express these feelings on this scale. And football teams could be urged on by their coach using ``ro'ole'o''. ``le'o'' is also useful in threats as an alternative to ``o'onai'', which expresses anger.

The cmavo ``vu'e'' represents ethical virtue or its absence. An excess of almost any emotion is usually somewhat ``sinful'' in the eyes of most ethical systems. On the other hand, we often feel virtuous about our feelings --- what we call righteous indignation might be ``o'onaivu'e''. Note that this is distinct from lack of guilt: ``.u'unai''.

The cmavo ``se'i'' expresses the difference between selfish and generous, for example (in combination with ``.au''):

7.5)  ause'i
    [desire] [self]
    I want it!

7.6)   ause'inai
    [desire] [other]
    I want you to have it!

In both cases, the English ``it'' is vague, reflecting the absence of a bridi. Example 7.5 and Example 7.6 are pure expressions of attitude. Analogously, ``.uuse'i'' is self-pity, whereas ``.uuse'inai'' is pity for someone else.

The modifier ``ri'e'' indicates emotional release versus emotional control. ``I will not let him know how angry I am'', you say to yourself before entering the room. The Lojban is much shorter:

7.7)  .o'onai ri'enai
    [anger] [control]

On the other hand, ``ri'e'' can be used by itself to signal an emotional outburst.

The cmavo ``fu'i'' may express a reason for feeling the way we do, as opposed to a feeling in itself; but it is a reason that is more emotionally determined than most. For example, it could show the difference between the mental discomfort mentioned in Section 6 when it is felt on an easy test, as opposed to on a hard test. When someone gives you a back massage, you could use ``.o'ufu'i'' to show appreciation for the assistance in your comfort.

The cmavo ``be'u'' expresses, roughly speaking, whether the emotion it modifies is in response to something you don't have enough of, something you have enough of, or something you have too much of. It is more or less the attitudinal equivalent of the subjective quantifier cmavo ``mo'a'', ``rau'', and ``du'e'' (these belong to selma'o PA, and are discussed in Chapter 18). For example,

7.8)  .uiro'obe'unai
    [Yay!] [physical] [Enough!]

Like all modifiers, ``be'u'' can be used alone:

7.9)  le cukta be'u cu zvati ma
    The book [Needed!] is at-location [what sumti?]
    Where's the book? --- I need it!

7.10)    .e'ese'a
    [I can!] [self-sufficient!]
    I can do it all by myself!

7.11)    .e'ese'anai
    [I can!] [dependent]
    I can do it if you help me.

7.12)    .e'enaise'a
    [I can't] [self-sufficient]
    I can't do it by myself!

7.13)    .e'enaise'anai
    [I can't!] [dependent]
    I can't do it if you insist on ``helping'' me!

8. Compound indicators

8.1)  mi .e .ui nai do
    I and [Yay!] [Not!] you

8.2)  mi .e nai .ui do
    I and [Not!] [Yay!] you

Thus, the complete internal grammar of UI is as follows, with each listed part optionally present or absent without affecting grammaticality, though it obviously would affect meaning.

attitudinal ``nai'' intensity-word ``nai'' modifier ``nai'' intensity-word ``nai'' (possibly repeated)

9. The uses of indicators

The behavior of indicators in the ``outside grammar'' is nearly as simple as their internal structure. Indicator groupings are identified immediately after the metalinguistic erasers ``si'', ``sa'', and ``su'' and some, though not all, kinds of quotations. The details of such interactions are discussed in Chapter 19.

A group of indicators may appear anywhere that a single indicator may, except in those few situations (as in ``zo'' quotation, explained in Chapter 19) where compound cmavo may not be used.

At the beginning of a text, indicators modify everything following them indefinitely: such a usage is taken as a raw emotional expression, and we normally don't turn off our emotions when we start and stop sentences. In every other place in an utterance, the indicator (or group) attaches to the word immediately to its left, and indicates that the attitude is being expressed concerning the object or concept to which the word refers.

If the word that an indicator (or group) attaches to is itself a cmavo which governs a grammatical structure, then the indicator construct pertains to the referent of the entire structure. There is also a mechanism, discussed in Chapter 19, for explicitly marking the range of words to which an indicator applies.

More details about the uses of indicators, and the way they interact with other specialized cmavo, are given in Chapter 19. It is worth mentioning that real-world interpretation is not necessarily consistent with the formal scope rules. People generally express emotions when they feel them, with only a minimum of grammatical constraint on that expression; complexities of emotional expression are seldom logically analyzable. Lojban attempts to provide a systematic reference that could possibly be ingrained to an instinctive level. However, it should always be assumed that the referent of an indicator has some uncertainty.

For example, in cases of multiple indicators expressed together, the combined form has some ambiguity of interpretation. It is possible to interpret the second indicator as expressing an attitude about the first, or to interpret both as expressing attitudes about the common referent. For example, in

9.1)  mi pu tavla do .o'onai .oi
    I [past] talk-to you [Grrr!] [Oy!]

Similarly, an indicator after the final brivla of a tanru may be taken to express an attitude about the particular brivla placed there --- as the rules have it --- or about the entire bridi which hinges on that brivla. Remembering that indicators are supposedly direct expressions of emotion, this ambiguity is acceptable.

Even if the scope rules given for indicators turn out to be impractical or unintuitive for use in conversation, they are still useful in written expression. There, where you can go back and put in markers or move words around, the scope rules can be used in lieu of elaborate nuances of body language and intonation to convey the writer's intent.

10. Attitude questions; empathy; attitude contours

   pei attitude question
    dai empathy
    bu'o    start emotion   continue emotion end emotion

10.1)    .iepei
    [agreement] [question]
    Do you agree?

10.2) .iare'epei
    [belief] [spiritual] [question]
    Are you a Believer?

10.3) .aipei
    [intention] [question]
    Are you going to do it?

10.4)    .aicai
    [intention] [maximal]

10.5)    .e'apei
    [permission] [question]
    Please, Mommy!  Can I??

10.6)    pei.o'u
    [question] [comfort]
    Are you comfortable?

10.7) pei.o'ucu'i
    [question] [comfort] [neutral]
    Are you no longer in pain?

10.8) pei.o'usai
    [question] [comfort] [strong]
    Are you again healthy?

10.9)    .oiro'odai
    [pain!] [physical] [empathy]
    Ouch, that must have hurt!

It is even possible to ``empathize'' with a non-living object:

10.10)  le bloti .iidai .uu pu
        klama le xasloi
    the ship [fear!] [empathy] [pity!] [past]
        goes-to the ocean-floor
    Fearfully the ship, poor thing, sank.

Both ``pei'' and ``dai'' represent exceptions to the normal rule that attitudinals reflect the speaker's attitude.

Finally, we often want to report how our attitudes are changing. If our attitude has not changed, we can just repeat the attitudinal. (Therefore, ``.ui .ui .ui'' is not the same as ``.uicai'', but simply means that we are continuing to be happy.) If we want to report that we are beginning to feel, continuing to feel, or ceasing to feel an emotion, we can use the attitudinal contour cmavo ``bu'o''.

When attached to an attitudinal, ``bu'o'' means that you are starting to have that attitude, ``bu'ocu'i'' that you are continuing to have it, and ``bu'onai'' that you are ceasing to have it. Some examples:

10.11)  o'onai bu'o
    [anger!] [start emotion]
    I'm getting angry!

10.12)   .iu bu'onai .uinai
    [love!] [end emotion] [unhappiness!]
    I don't love you any more; I'm sad.

Note the difference in effect between Example 10.12 and:

10.13)  mi ca ba'o prami do ja'e le nu
        mi badri
    I [present] [cessitive] love you with-result the event-of
        (I am-sad).
    I no longer love you; therefore, I am sad.

11. Evidentials

   ja'o    I conclude
            [jalge]
    ca'e    I define
    ba'a    I expect    I experience    I remember
            [balvi]
    su'a    I generalize            I particularize
            [sucta]
    ti'e    I hear (hearsay)
            [tirna]
    ka'u    I know by cultural means
            [kulnu]
    se'o    I know by internal experience
            [senva]
    za'a    I observe
            [zgana]
    pe'i    I opine [pensi]
    ru'a    I postulate
            [sruma]
    ju'a    I state [jufra]

11.1)    ca'e le re do cu simxu speni
    [I define!] The two of-you are-mutual spouses.

11.2)    ba'acu'i le tuple be mi cu se cortu
    [I experience!] The leg of me is-the-locus-of-pain.
    My leg hurts.

The opposite point of the scale, ``su'anai'', indicates abduction, or drawing specific conclusions from general premises or patterns.

This cmavo can also function as a discursive (see Section 12), in which case ``su'a'' means ``abstractly'' or ``in general'', and ``su'anai'' means ``concretely'' or ``in particular''.

A bridi marked by ``ti'e'' is relayed information from some source other than the speaker. There is no necessary implication that the information was relayed via the speaker's ears; what we read in a newspaper is an equally good example of ``ti'e'', unless we have personal knowledge of the content.

11.3)    ti'e la .uengas cu zergau
    [I hear!] Wenga is-a-criminal-doer.
    I hear that Wenga is a crook.

On the other hand, ``se'o'' marks a bridi whose truth is asserted by the speaker as a result of an internal experience not directly available to others, such as a dream, vision, or personal revelation. In some cultures, the line between ``ka'u'' and ``se'o'' is fuzzy or even nonexistent.

A bridi marked by ``za'a'' is based on perception or direct observation by the speaker. This use of ``observe'' is not connected with the Lojban ``observative'', or bridi with the first sumti omitted. The latter has no explicit aspect, and could be a direct observation, a conclusion, an opinion, or other aspectual point of view.

11.4)    za'a do tatpi
    [I observe!] You are-tired.
    I see you are tired.

11.5)    pe'i la kartagos. .ei se daspo
    [I opine!] Carthage [obligation] is-destroyed.
    In my opinion, Carthage should be destroyed.

11.6)    ru'a doi livinston.
    Dr. Livingstone, I presume?
        (A rhetorical question: Stanley knew who he was.)

12. Discursives

   ku'i    however/but/in contrast     [karbi]
    ji'a    additionally            [jmina]
    si'a    similarly           [simsa]
    mi'u    ditto               [mintu]
    po'o    the only relevant case

Lastly, ``po'o'' is used when there is no other comparable case, and thus corresponds to some of the uses of ``only'', a word difficult to express in pure bridi form:

12.1)    mi po'o darxi le mi tamne fo le nazbi
    I [only] hit my cousin at-locus the nose.
    Only I (nobody else) hit my cousin on his nose.

12.2) mi darxi po'o le mi tamne fo le nazbi
    I hit [only] my cousin at-locus the nose.
    I only hit my cousin on his nose
        (I did nothing else to him).

12.3) mi darxi le mi tamne po'o fo le nazbi
    I hit my cousin [only] at-locus the nose.
    I hit only my cousin on his nose (no one else).

12.4) mi darxi le mi tamne fo le nazbi po'o
    I hit my cousin at-locus the nose [only].
    I hit my cousin only on his nose (nowhere else).

Next, the ``commentary on words'' group:

   va'i    in other words      in the same words
            [valsi]
    ta'u    expanding a tanru   making a tanru
            [tanru]

The cmavo ``ta'u'' is a discursive unique to Lojban; it expresses the particularly Lojbanic device of tanru. Since tanru are semantically ambiguous, they are subject to misunderstanding. This ambiguity can be removed by expanding the tanru into some semantically unambiguous structure, often involving relative clauses or the introduction of additional brivla. The discursive ``ta'u'' marks the transition from the use of a brief but possibly confusing tanru to its fuller, clearer expansion; the discursive ``ta'unai'' marks a transition in the reverse direction.

Next, the ``commentary on discourse'' group:

   li'a    clearly/obviously       obscurely
            [klina]
    ba'u    exaggeration    accuracy    understatement
            [banli]
    zo'o    humorously  dully       seriously

    sa'e    precisely speaking      loosely speaking
            [satci]
    to'u    in brief            in detail
            [tordu]
    do'a    generously          parsimoniously
            [dunda]
    sa'u    simply              elaborating
            [sampu]
    pa'e    justice             prejudice
            [pajni]
    je'u    truly               falsely
            [jetnu]

A few additional English equivalents: for ``sa'enai'', ``roughly speaking'' or ``approximately speaking''; for ``sa'unai'', ``furthermore''; for ``to'u'', ``in short'' or ``skipping details''; for ``do'a'', ``broadly construed''; for ``do'anai'' (as you might expect), ``narrowly construed''.

The cmavo ``pa'e'' is used to claim (truly or falsely) that one is being fair or just to all parties mentioned, whereas ``pa'enai'' admits (or proclaims) a bias in favor of one party.

The scale of ``je'u'' and ``je'unai'' is a little different from the others in the group. By default, we assume that people speak the truth --- or at least, that if they are lying, they will do their best to conceal it from us. So under what circumstances would ``je'unai'' be used, or ``je'u'' be useful? For one thing, ``je'u'' can be used to mark a tautology: a sentence that is a truth of logic, like ``All cats are cats.'' Its counterpart ``je'unai'' then serves to mark a logical contradiction. In addition, ``je'unai'' can be used to express one kind of sarcasm or irony, where the speaker pretends to believe what he/she says, but actually wishes the listener to infer a contrary opinion. Other forms of irony can be marked with ``zo'o'' (humor) or ``.ianai'' (disbelief).

When used as a discursive, ``su'a'' (see Section 11) belongs to this group.

Next, the ``knowledge'' group:

   ju'o    certainly   uncertain   certainly not
            [djuno]
    la'a    probably            improbably
            [lakne]

Next, the ``discourse management'' group:

   ta'o    by the way          returning to point
            [tanjo]
    ra'u    chiefly     equally     incidentally
            [ralju]
    mu'a    for example omitting ex.    end examples
            [mupli]
    zu'u    on the one hand         on the other hand

    ke'u    repeating           continuing
            [krefu]
    da'i    supposing           in fact

Other English equivalents of ``ta'onai'' are ``anyway'', ``anyhow'', ``in any case'', ``in any event'', ``as I was saying'', and ``continuing''.

The scale of ``ra'u'' has to do with the importance of the point being, or about to be, expressed: ``ra'u'' is the most important point, ``ra'ucu'i'' is a point of equal importance, and ``ra'unai'' is a lesser point. Other English equivalents of ``ra'u'' are ``above all'' and ``primarily''.

The cmavo ``ke'u'' is very similar to ``va'i'', although ``ke'unai'' and ``va'inai'' are quite different. Both ``ke'u'' and ``va'i'' indicate that the same idea is going to be expressed using different words, but the two cmavo differ in emphasis. Using ``ke'u'' emphasizes that the content is the same; using ``va'i'' emphasizes that the words are different. Therefore, ``ke'unai'' shows that the content is new (and therefore the words are also); ``va'inai'' shows that the words are the same (and therefore so is the content). One English equivalent of ``ke'unai'' is ``furthermore''.

The discursive ``da'i'' marks the discourse as possibly taking a non-real-world viewpoint (``Supposing that'', ``By hypothesis''), whereas ``da'inai'' insists on the real-world point of view (``In fact'', ``In truth'', ``According to the facts''). A common use of ``da'i'' is to distinguish between:

12.5)     ganai da'i do viska le mi citno mensi
        gi ju'o do djuno le du'u ri pazvau
    If you [hypothetical] see my young sister,
        then [certain] you know that she is-pregnant.
    If you were to see my younger sister,
        you would certainly know she is pregnant.

12.6)     ganai da'inai do viska le mi citno mensi
        gi ju'o do djuno le du'u ri pazvau
    If you [factual] see my young sister,
        then [certainty] you know that she is-pregnant.
    If you saw my younger sister,
        you would certainly know she is pregnant.

It is also perfectly correct to omit the discursive altogether, and leave the context to indicate which significance is meant. (Chinese always leaves this distinction to the context: the Chinese sentence

12.7)    ru2guo^3 ni^3 kan4dao^4 wo^3 mei4mei,
        ni^3 yi2ding^4 zhi1dao^4 ta^1 huai2yun^4 le
    if you see-arrive my younger-sister,
        you certainly know she pregnant

13. Miscellaneous indicators

   ki'a    metalinguistic confusion
    na'i    metalinguistic negator
    jo'a    metalinguistic affirmer
    li'o    omitted text (quoted material)
    sa'a    material inserted by editor/narrator
    xu  true-false question
    pau question premarker      rhetorical question
    pe'a    figurative language     literal language
    bi'u    new information         old information
    ge'e    non-specific indicator

13.1)    mi nelci le ctuca
    .i le ki'a ctuca

    I like the teacher
    Which teacher?

Here, the second speaker does not understand the referent of the sumti ``le ctuca'', and so echoes back the sumti with the confusion marker.

The metalinguistic negation cmavo ``na'i'' and its opposite ``jo'a'' are explained in full in Chapter 15. In general, ``na'i'' indicates that there is something wrong with a piece of discourse: either an error, or a false underlying assumption, or something else of the sort. The discourse is invalid or inappropriate due to the marked word or construct.

Similarly, ``jo'a'' marks something which looks wrong but is in fact correct. These two cmavo constitute a scale, but are kept apart for two reasons: ``na'inai'' means the same as ``jo'a'', but would be too confusing as an affirmation; ``jo'anai'' means the same as ``na'i'', but is too long to serve as a convenient metalinguistic negator.

The next two cmavo are used to assist in quoting texts written or spoken by others. It is often the case that we wish to quote only part of a text, or to supply additional material either by way of commentary or to make a fragmentary text grammatical. The cmavo ``li'o'' serves the former function. It indicates that words were omitted from the quotation. What remains of the quotation must be grammatical, however, as ``li'o'' does not serve any grammatical function. It cannot, for example, take the place of a missing selbri in a bridi, or supply the missing tail of a description sumti: ``le li'o'' in isolation is not grammatical.

The cmavo ``sa'a'' indicates in a quotation that the marked word or construct was not actually expressed, but is inserted for editorial, narrative, or grammatical purposes. Strictly, even a ``li'o'' should appear in the form ``li'osa'a'', since the ``li'o'' was not part of the original quotation. In practice, this and other forms which are already associated with metalinguistic expressions, such as ``sei'' (of selma'o SEI) or ``to'i'' (of selma'o TO) need not be marked except where confusion might result.

In the rare case that the quoted material already contains one or more instances of ``sa'a'', they can be changed to ``sa'asa'a''.

The cmavo ``xu'' marks truth questions, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 15. In general, ``xu'' may be translated ``Is it true that ... ?'' and questions whether the attached bridi is true. When ``xu'' is attached to a specific word or construct, it directs the focus of the question to that word or construct.

Lojban question words, unlike those of English, frequently do not stand at the beginning of the question. Placing the cmavo ``pau'' at the beginning of a bridi helps the listener realize that the bridi is a question, like the symbol at the beginning of written Spanish questions that looks like an upside-down question mark. The listener is then warned to watch for the actual question word.

Although ``pau'' is grammatical in any location (like all indicators), it is not really useful except at or near the beginning of a bridi. Its scalar opposite, ``paunai'', signals that a bridi is not really a question despite its form. This is what we call in English a rhetorical question: an example appears in the English text near the beginning of Section 11.

The cmavo ``pe'a'' is the indicator of figurative speech, indicating that the previous word should be taken figuratively rather than literally:

13.2)    mi viska le blanu pe'a zdani
    I see the blue [figurative] house.
    I see the ``blue'' house.

Here the house is not blue in the sense of color, but in some other sense, whose meaning is entirely culturally dependent. The use of ``pe'a'' unambiguously marks a cultural reference: ``blanu'' in Example 13.2 could mean ``sad'' (as in English) or something completely different.

The negated form, ``pe'anai'', indicates that what has been said is to be interpreted literally, in the usual way for Lojban; natural-language intuition is to be ignored.

Alone among the cmavo of selma'o UI, ``pe'a'' has a rafsi, namely ``pev''. This rafsi is used in forming figurative (culturally dependent) lujvo, whose place structure need have nothing to do with the place structure of the components. Thus ``risnyjelca'' (heart burn) might have a place structure like:

x1 is the heart of x2, burning in atmosphere x3 at temperature x4

x1 is indigestion/heartburn suffered by x2

The uses of ``bi'u'' and ``bi'unai'' correspond to one of the uses of the English articles ``the'' and ``a/an''. An English-speaker telling a story may begin with ``I saw a man who ...''. Later in the story, the same man will be referred to with the phrase ``the man''. Lojban does not use its articles in the same way: both ``a man'' and ``the man'' would be translated ``le nanmu'', since the speaker has in mind a specific man. However, the first use might be marked ``le bi'u nanmu'', to indicate that this is a new man, not mentioned before. Later uses could correspondingly be tagged ``le bi'unai nanmu''.

Most of the time, the distinction between ``bi'u'' and ``bi'unai'' need not be made, as the listener can infer the right referent. However, if a different man were referred to still later in the story, ``le bi'u nanmu'' would clearly show that this man was different from the previous one.

Finally, the indicator ``ge'e'' has been discussed in Sections 8 and 10. It is used to express an attitude which is not covered by the existing set, or to avoid expressing any attitude.

Another use for ``ge'e'' is to explicitly avoid expressing one's feeling on a given scale; in this use, it functions like a member of selma'o CAI: ``.iige'e'' means roughly ``I'm not telling whether I'm afraid or not.''

   kau indirect question

This cmavo is explained in detail in Chapter 11. It marks the word it is attached to as the focus of an indirect question:

13.3)    mi djuno le du'u
        dakau klama le zarci
    I know the statement-that
        somebody [ind. ?] goes to-the store.
    I know who goes to the store.

14. Vocative scales

The grammar of vocatives is explained in Chapter 6; but in brief, a vocative may be followed by a name (without ``la''), a description (without ``le'' or its relatives), a complete sumti, or nothing at all (if the addressee is obvious from the context). There is an elidable terminator, ``do'u'' (of selma'o DOhU) which is almost never required unless no name (or other indication of the addressee) follows the vocative.

Using any vocative except ``mi'e'' (explained below) implicitly defines the meaning of the pro-sumti ``do'', as the whole point of vocatives is to specify the listener, or at any rate the desired listener --- even if the desired listener isn't listening! We will use the terms ``speaker'' and ``listener'' for clarity, although in written Lojban the appropriate terms would be ``writer'' and ``reader''.

In the following list of vocatives, the translations include the symbol X. This represents the name (or identifying description, or whatever) of the listener.

The cmavo ``doi'' is the general-purpose vocative. Unlike the cmavo of selma'o COI, explained below, ``doi'' can precede a name directly without an intervening pause. It is not considered a scale, and ``doinai'' is not grammatical. In general, ``doi'' needs no translation in English (we just use names by themselves without any preceding word, although in poetic styles we sometimes say ``Oh X'', which is equivalent to ``doi''). One may attach an attitudinal to ``doi'' to express various English vocatives. For example, ``doi .io'' means ``Sir/Madam!'', whereas ``doi .ionai'' means ``You there!''.

All members of selma'o COI require a pause when used immediately before a name, in order to prevent the name from absorbing the COI word. This is unlike selma'o DOI and LA, which do not require pauses because the syllables of these cmavo are not permitted to be embedded in a Lojban name. When calling out to someone, this is fairly natural, anyway. ``Hey! John!'' is thus a better translation of ``ju'i .djan.'' than ``Hey John!''. No pause is needed if the vocative reference is something other than a name, as in the title of the Lojban journal, ``ju'i lobypli''.

(Alternatively, ``doi'' can be inserted between the COI cmavo and the name, making a pause unnecessary: ``coi doi djan.'')

   coi greetings

   co'o    partings

   ju'i    attention   at ease     ignore me/us
            [jundi]

   nu'e    promise     release promise non-promise
            [nupre]

   ta'a    interruption
            [tavla]

   pe'u    request
            [cpedu]

   ki'e    appreciation                disappreciation
            [ckire]
        gratitude           ingratitude

   fi'i    welcome,        unwelcome,
        offering        inhospitality
            [friti]

   be'e    request to send
            [benji]

   re'i    ready to receive        not ready
            [bredi]

   mu'o    completion of utterance     more to follow
            [mulno]

   je'e    successful          unsuccessful
         receipt            receipt
            [jimpe]

   vi'o    will comply         will not comply

   ke'o    please repeat           no repeat needed
            [krefu]

   fe'o    end of communication        not done
            [fanmo]

Do not confuse ``fe'o'' with ``fa'o'' (selma'o FAhO) which is a mechanical, extra-grammatical signal that a text is complete. One may say ``fe'o'' to one participant of a multi-way conversation and then go on speaking to the others.

   mi'e    self-identification     non-identification
        [cmavo: mi]

This cmavo is often combined with other members of COI: ``fe'omi'e'' would be an appropriate closing at the end of a letter; ``re'imi'e'' would be a self-vocative used in delayed responses, as when called to the phone, or possibly in a roll-call. As long as the ``mi'e'' comes last, the following name is that of the speaker; if another COI cmavo is last, the following name is that of the listener. It is not possible to name both speaker and listener in a single vocative expression, but this fact is of no importance, because wherever one vocative expression is grammatical, any number of consecutive ones may appear.

The negative form denies an identity which someone else has attributed to you; ``mi'enai .djan.'' means that you are saying you are not John.

Many of the vocatives been listed with translations which are drawn from radio use: ``roger'', ``wilco'', ``over and out''. This form of translation does not mean that Lojban is a language of CB enthusiasts, but rather that in most natural languages these forms are so well handled by the context that only in specific domains (like speaking on the radio) do they need special words. In Lojban, dependence on the context can be dangerous, as speaker and listener may not share the right context, and so the vocatives provide a formal protocol for use when it is appropriate. Other appropriate contexts include computer communications and parliamentary procedure: in the latter context, the protocol question ``ta'apei'' would mean ``Will the speaker yield?''

15. A sample dialogue

15.1)    la rik. .e la .alis. nerkla le kafybarja
    Rick and Alice in-go to-the coffee-bar.
    Rick and Alice go into the coffee bar.

15.2) .i sei la rik. cusku se'u
        ta'a ro zvati be ti
        mi baza speni ti .iu
    [Comment] Rick says, [end-comment]
        [Interrupt] all at this-place,
        I [future] [medium] am-spouse-to this-one [love].
    Rick said, ``Sorry to break in, everybody.
        Pretty soon I'm getting married
        to my love here.''

15.3) .i sei la djordj. cusku se'u
        a'o ko gleki doi ma
    [Comment] George says, [end-comment]
        [Hope] [You-imperative] are-happy, O [who?].
    George said, ``I hope you'll be happy, um, ...?''

15.4) .i sei la pam. cusku se'u
        pe'u .alis.
        xu mi ba terfriti
            le nunspenybi'o
    [Comment] Pam says,
        [Please] Alice, [end-comment]
        [Is it true?] I [future] receive-offer-of
            the event-of-spouse-becoming?
    Pam said, ``Please, Alice, am I going to be
        invited to the wedding?''

15.5) .i sei la mark. cusku se'u
        coi baza speni
        a'o le re do lifri
            le ka xamgu
    [Comment] Mark says, [end-comment]
        [Greetings] [future] [medium] spouse(s),
        [Hope] the two of-you experience
            the-property-of being-happy
    Mark said, ``Hello, spouses-to-be.  I hope both of
        you will be very happy.''

15.6) .i sei la rik. cusku se'u
        mi'e .rik. doi terpreti
    [Comment] Rick says, [end-comment]
        [I am] Rick, O questioners.
    Rick said, ``My name is Rick, for those of you who
        want to know.''

15.7) .i sei la .alis. cusku se'u
        nu'e .pam. .o'ero'i
        do ba zvati
    [Comment] Alice says, [end-comment]
        [Promise-to] Pam, [closeness] [emotional]
        you [future] are-at.
    Alice said, ``I promise you'll be there, Pam honey.''

15.8) .i sei la fred. cusku se'u
        .uinaicairo'i
        mi ji'a prami la .alis.
        fe'o .rik.
    [Comment] Fred says, [end-comment]
        [Happy] [not] [emphatic] [emotional]
        I [additionally] love Alice.
        [Over and out to] Rick.
    ``I love Alice too,'' said Fred miserably.  ``Have a
        nice life, Rick.''

15.9) .i la fred. cliva
    Fred leaves.
    And he left.

15.10)   .i sei la rik. cusku se'u
        fi'i ro zvati
        ko pinxe pa ckafi
            fi'o pleji mi
    [Comment] Rick says, [end-comment]
        [Welcome-to] all at-place,
        [You-imperative] drink one coffee
            with-payer me.
    Rick said, raising his voice, ``A cup of coffee
        for the house, on me.''

15.11)   .i sei la pam. cusku se'u
        be'e selfu
    [Comment] Pam says, [end-comment]
        [Request to speak to] server.
    Pam said, ``Waiter!''

15.12)   .i sei le selfu cu cusku se'u
        re'i [end-comment]
    [Comment] The server says,
        [Ready to receive].
    The waiter replied, ``May I help you?''

15.13)   .i sei la pam. cusku se'u
        e'o ko selfu
        le traji xamgu ckafi
        le baza speni
        fi'o selpleji mi
    [Comment] Pam says, [end-comment]
        [Petition] [You-imperative] serve
        the (superlatively good) coffee
        to-the [future] [medium] spouse
        with-payment me.
    Pam said, ``One Jamaica Blue for the lovebirds here,
        on my tab.''

15.14)   .i sei le selfu cucusku se'u
        vi'o
    [Comment] The server says, [end-comment]
        [Will comply].
    ``Gotcha'', said the waiter.

15.15)   .i sei la rik. cusku se'u
        ki'e .pam.
    [Comment] Rick says, [end-comment]
        [Thanks O] Pam.
    ``Thanks, Pam'', said Rick.

15.16)   .i sei la pam. cusku se'u
        je'e
    [Comment] Pam says, [end-comment]
        [Acknowledge].
    ``Sure'', said Pam.

15.17)   .i sei la djan. cusku se'u
        .y. mi .y. mutce spopa .y.
        le nu le speni si .y.
        ba speni .y. .y.
        su .yyyyyy. mu'o
    [Comment] John says, [end-comment]
        [Uh] I [uh] very [nonexistent gismu] [uh]
        the event-of the spouse [erase] [uh]
        [future] spouse [uh] [uh]
        [erase all] [uh] [over]
    John said, ``I, er, a lotta, uh, marriage,
        upcoming marriage, ....  Oh, forget it.
        Er, later.''

15.18)   .i sei la djordj. cusku se'u
        ke'o .djan. zo'o
    [Comment] George says, [end-comment]
        [Repeat O] John [humor].
    ``How's that again, John?'' said George.

15.19)   .i sei la pam. cusku se'u
        ju'i .djordj.
        .e'unai le kabri bazi farlu
    [Comment] Pam says, [end-comment]
        [Attention] George,
        [Warning] the cup [future] [short] falls
    ``George, watch out!'' said Pam.  ``The cup's falling!''

15.20)   .i le kabri cu je'a farlu
    The cup indeed falls.
    The cup fell.

15.21)   .i sei la djan. cusku se'u
        e'o doi djordj. zo'o rapygau
    [Comment] John says, [end-comment]
        [Petition] O George [humor] repeat-cause.
    John said, ``Try that again, George!''

15.22)   .i sei la djordj. cusku se'u
        co'o ro zvati pe secau la djan. ga'i
    [Comment] George says, [end-comment]
        [Partings] all at-place without John [superiority]
    ``Goodbye to all of you,'' said George sneeringly,
        ``except John.''

15.23)   .i la djordj. cliva
    George leaves.
    George left.

16. Tentative conclusion

We have tried to err on the side of overkill. There are distinctions possible in this system that no one may care to make in any culture. But it was deemed more neutral to overspecify and let usage decide, than to choose a limited set and constrain emotional expression. For circumstances in which even the current indicator set is not enough, it is possible using the cmavo ``sei'', explained in Chapter 19, to create metalinguistic comments that act like indicators.

We envision an evolutionary development. At this point, the system is little more than a mental toy. Many of you who read this will try playing around with various combinations of indicators, trying to figure out what emotions they express and when the expressions might be useful. You may even find an expression for which there currently is no good English word and start using it. Why not, if it helps you express your feelings?

There will be a couple dozen of these used pretty much universally -- mostly just simple attitudinals with, at most, intensity markers. These are the ones that will quickly be expressed at the subconscious level. But every Lojbanist who plays with the list will bring in a couple of new words. Poets will paint emotional pictures, and people who identify with those pictures will use the words so created for their own experiences.

Just as a library of tanru is built up, so will a library of attitudes be built. Unlike the tanru, though, the emotional expressions are built on some fairly nebulous root emotions --- words that cannot be defined with the precision of the gismu. The emotion words of Lojban will very quickly take on a life of their own, and the outline given here will evolve into a true system of emotions.

There are several theories as to the nature of emotion, and they change from year to year as we learn more about ourselves. Whether or not Lojban's additive/scalar emotional model is an accurate model for human emotions, it does support the linguistic needs for expressing those emotions. Researchers may learn more about the nature of human emotions by exploring the use of the system by Lojban speakers. They also may be able to use the Lojban system as a means for more clearly recording emotions.

The full list of scales and attitudes will probably not be used until someone speaks the language from birth. Until then, people will use the attitudes that are important to them. In this way, we counter cultural bias --- if a culture is prone to recognizing and/or expressing certain emotions more than others, its members will use only those out of the enormous set available. If a culture hides certain emotions, its members simply won't express them.

Perhaps native Lojban speakers will be more expressively clear about their emotions than others. Perhaps they will feel some emotions more strongly than others in ways that can be correlated with the word choices; any difference from the norms of other cultures could be significant. Psychologists have devised elaborate tests for measuring attitudes and personality; this may be the easiest area in which to detect any systematic cultural effect of the type sought to confirm Sapir-Whorf, simply because we already have tools in existence to test it. Because Lojban is unique among languages in having such extensive and expressive indicators, it is likely that a Sapir-Whorf effect will occur and will be recognized.

It is unlikely that we will know the true potential of a system like this one until and unless we have children raised entirely in a multi-cultural Lojban-speaking environment. We learn too many cultural habits in the realm of emotional communication ``at our mother's knee''. Such children will have a Lojban system that has stronger reinforcement than any typical culture system. The second generation of such children, then, could be said to be the start of a true Lojbanic culture.

We shouldn't need to wait that long to detect significant effects. Emotion is so basic to our lives that even a small change or improvement in emotional communication would have immediately noticeable effects. Perhaps it will be the case that the most important contribution of our ``logical language'' will be in the non-logical realm of emotion!

Last modified: Mon Jun 27 23:13:41 PDT 2005

Please contact us with any comments, suggestions or concerns.