From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jan 20 15:21:35 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JGjTr-00083C-Ao for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:21:35 -0800 Received: from squid17.laughingsquid.net ([72.32.93.144]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JGjTm-00082v-6O for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:21:34 -0800 Received: (qmail 17216 invoked by uid 48); 20 Jan 2008 15:21:20 -0800 Received: from c-75-68-233-37.hsd1.vt.comcast.net (c-75-68-233-37.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [75.68.233.37]) by webmail.ixkey.info (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:21:20 -0800 Message-ID: <20080120152120.aidkckzdes8s0gs8@webmail.ixkey.info> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:21:20 -0800 From: mungojelly@ixkey.info To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] attitudinals, was Re: zo .e'e References: <20080105225008.k2wyw47jywwowc44@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560801060549r667c5c87kcdbf542852bce09d@mail.gmail.com> <20080107141153.pki44f5eassogwc4@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560801071444k71b98c50h38879b1c9451ba3e@mail.gmail.com> <20080118211730.qvf7bo4pwk0gogks@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560801200800p2093e1e5jc0f2acd2756d584@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560801200800p2093e1e5jc0f2acd2756d584@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 277 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mungojelly@ixkey.info Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Quoting Jorge Llambías : > That's one way of putting it. I would say that whereas the bridi > provides the propositional content of the utterance, the attitudinal > is used to show what the speaker does with it. Making an assertion, > asserting it, is perhaps the most obvious thing one can do with a > bridi, but of course it is not the only possibility. Yes, thank you, that's just what I've been thinking, expressed very clearly. To me it still seems easier with some cmavo than others. It seems very clear to me for instance how the ".ia" scale effects the speakers action, for instance. If they use the positive end of the ".ia" scale, the speaker is speaking the bridi and also saying that they believe the bridi is true. If they use the negative end of the scale, ".ianai", they are speaking the bridi and also saying that they believe that it's false. The expression of the sentence is differently colored, by relating it to the speaker's faithful understanding of the world. The ".ui" scale feels a little more difficult for me to fully grok. There's something very new in the Lojbanicness of it. I'm used to the idea of expressing a sentence as believed or not-believed, but in my intuition from English it's more *speakers* that are happy/sad. My Lojbanic logic and intuition, though, say that the ".ui" scale is not just a verbal smile or verbal smiley, but exactly parallel to the ".ia" scale in the way it adjusts the bridi's relationship. It's not whether the speaker is happy at the moment, or whether they're happy about what they're saying, it's whether the bridi is connected to the body of things that make the speaker happy. In Lojban as well as having a body of beliefs (selkrici), a person has a body of happiness-producing-things (selgleki). > Or at least more transparent. "za'a do klama" tells me how the speaker > knows of your going, but not whether they are happy about it. "za'a .ui > do klama" tells me how they know and that they are happy, but not > whether they are surprized, and so on. I've begun to think of it as a swarming interwoven sea of implication underlying every expression. Context shapes our understanding of an expression, and the attitudinals also reach in to grab particular strings in the net. For instance, if you grab the ".a'o" string, the closely- connected ".au" string will tend to be dragged along. If you wanted to contradict that assumption you'd need to say ".a'o.aunai", an imaginable but unusual perspective. > So {ei} fits more with {au} or {a'o}. In trying to put together a pedagogy for Cniglic, I've been pondering how to group & order the scales to teach them. So far what I've come up with is the seven sets .iX, .uX, & .X'X, leaving the four oddballs .ai, .ei, .au and .oi. There seems to be some organization in terms of the .a'-series, the .e'-series, etc, and I also thought it might have mnenomic value if the groups shared sounds. Does that make any sense? How would you (doi ro tcidu) organize the 39 scales into smaller sets to teach together? mu'o mi'e la mungodjelis. no'u la bret.