Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:38138)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCN673cmqFBCh_5-BBRoEUyaKjA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T0dYW-0001pv-AC; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:10:38 -0700
Received: by pbbrp2 with SMTP id rp2sf3969686pbb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam
         :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:organization
         :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to
         :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to
         :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post
         :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Fwn69e3COv0ut/1Va9yzwnd5ULFAjUNZqIetID6GkHQ=;
        b=Xv8ZVEq4KSPiLGd3E2wPj3imn+fXCVVkWTLJX3J/7N3ex1Pk4cfznd6x/TXgCoceqV
         zkZwuwe1HK/QI9A0aNWpC33iXGF327FuM+oY8MXtheH+yKa/sNVz4/sFNwLmH3wtMiF8
         hdvYpmYqe/N2y9YpTmvDm9woCtBZmi3/WgUKo=
Received: by 10.229.105.81 with SMTP id s17mr408890qco.14.1344798625537;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.224.174.207 with SMTP id u15ls3521410qaz.9.gmail; Sun, 12 Aug
 2012 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.180.205 with SMTP id bv13mr6814285qab.8.1344798624983;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.180.205 with SMTP id bv13mr6814283qab.8.1344798624967;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net (eastrmfepo103.cox.net. [68.230.241.215])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id ft6si1168327qcb.0.2012.08.12.12.10.24;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20120812191024.VOXJ8874.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo209>
          for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:10:24 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.187.237.100])
	by eastrmimpo209 with cox
	id lvAP1j00T2AfMYu01vAQn8; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:10:24 -0400
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020203.5027FFA0.0096,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=VLlfbqzX c=1 sm=1
 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=umyTHFUHQVoA:10
 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8
 a=KUNolJvZVdatuE91twMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10
 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=yCdtivocZazlNqom:21 a=VcThuL96HusyxEcB:21
 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <5027FFA0.5000700@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:10:24 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention
References: <f36b517b-87d9-4aac-bfd7-b33d226bf46a@googlegroups.com> <50255C09.10805@lojban.org> <b7275ac9-1e1c-42e0-bed1-dfcb026849e8@googlegroups.com> <1344701600.97921.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2eQPnyHwFTG+YkwT-FrTS8enAZzj18StVLEz30VT3c5mg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOYwWb1Di=o0PKLbOEYbnkqCOTFq0hwB2yex_z+TJZvMugELog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOYwWb1Di=o0PKLbOEYbnkqCOTFq0hwB2yex_z+TJZvMugELog@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

Mike S. wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com
> <mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     At least no claim or assertion can do it, but you can use a
>     proposition for other purposes than making claims. "ca'e" is supposed
>     to mark a sentence as a performative (despite its gloss), so if you
>     say "ca'e mi jarco lo nu mi brodu lo nu klama"; "I hereby express my
>     intention to go", you are thereby expressing an intention to go. So
>     ".ai" could be taken as an abreviated form of "ca'e mi jarco lo nu mi
>     brodu". Similarly for other attitudinals, "ui" is similar to "ca'e mi
>     jarco lo nu mi gleki", "I hereby display my happiness", and so on.
>     (The wordy form doesn't quite have the same practical effect though.)
>
> I would think that ".ui" simply means "I am happy", not "I display my
> happiness".

No.  It means neither, because both of those are truth-functional=20
claims, and "ui" is not.

> Either way, if the speaker is actually unhappy,

then he isn't really speaking Lojban. (or as you suggest below, he is=20
delusional)

Attitudinals are emotional expressions.  In theory "ui" should be the=20
same as what other-language speakers do when they express happiness=20
non-verbally.

> I think
> that we have to admit that he is being disingenuous to his audience if
> he utters ".ui" with no hint of irony.

He is being meaningless - expressing noise in a confusing manner.

> Because of this, I think these
> attitudinals are as truth-functional as any brivla: they evaluate to a
> real truth value

By definition they do not.

> given two arguments: the speaker and the proposition
> that the attitudinal is embedded in. Obviously it's hard to know if a
> person is truthful in the expression of his own feelings,

One cannot be untruthful.  One can either express one's feelings or one=20
can fail to express one's feelings, possibly making irrelevant noises in=20
the process.

> Even more so in the case with the irrealis attitudinals.  If I say ".ai
> [I am giving you a million bucks tomorrow]" when I know that I am
> bankrupt and all my banking accounts are overdrawn then clearly I am
> lying to you.

It is probably false that you are giving a million bucks.  The=20
attitudinal is irrelevant to that falsehood.  (by my understandiong,=20
"irrealis" means that the attitudinal is irrelevant to the=20
truth-functional value of the proposition)

> ".ai mi dunda la lunra do" is simply (literally) false
> when uttered by any non-delusional interlocutor.

iff it is false when the ".ai" is omitted, then it is false with the=20
"ai" included.

But the emotional expression of ".ai" could still be quite honest, even=20
if it would be delusional to think the underlying proposition to be true.

Emotions are NOT "logical", nor truth-functional.  Most people probably=20
prefer it that way, even if it makes them sometimes seem a bit=20
delusional.  So long as we can clearly distinguish between the claim and=20
the emotional expression, this causes no problem in communication.

When you start trying to make attitudinals truth-functional, you kill=20
the whole point in having them in the language, which is to allow=20
expression of emotions without having to worry about "truthiness".=20
Assigning truth to attitudinals INVITES people to lie using them,=20
whereas the expressions of attitude in natural language generally are=20
not subject to such analysis.

The example I like to use for this are most uses of obscenities in=20
English.  When my dad talked about the "f***ing door being left open" he=20
was not attributing reproductive activity on the part of an inanimate=20
object, and indeed there was no truth functionality to that adjective -=20
it was expressing an attitude towards the state being described.  We=20
might argue about what attitude he was expressing, (and the point of=20
Lojban attitudinals is to enable one to be clear in expressing one's=20
attitudes if one wishes), but one would not legitimately be able to say=20
that my dad was lying either about the door or about his emotions in=20
making that expression.

--=20
Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.


--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.