Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:44831)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCN673cmqFBDdhKCBBRoElInS7w@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T0djo-0001vs-0J; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:22:26 -0700
Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10sf3925300vcb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:22:05 -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;
        bh=HwER9R/LemZujFvUAu3WybIhKJSjI1LKUZ2xEP/wKXE=;
        b=nrZeCOAVkhoE+5iI8cOqWNlJtFrzW9j4J4ICmRL732CNsjdD1YhKYew4cSy6X1BSmb
         VPLUXcwZEkm6nphcC6RLRt1him86U/p8ETNzV2TRYpz3WeBdhfd8DufWwL7fBD195GjK
         AQH1mhHbxyG7LFU7scX05MfjdtPcFylgzFSrQ=
Received: by 10.224.182.145 with SMTP id cc17mr2173487qab.0.1344799325123;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.176.150 with SMTP id be22ls6930521qcb.4.gmail; Sun, 12 Aug
 2012 12:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.17.135 with SMTP id s7mr3589298qaa.1.1344799324474;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.17.135 with SMTP id s7mr3589297qaa.1.1344799324464;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net (eastrmfepo202.cox.net. [68.230.241.217])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id ft6si1178282qcb.0.2012.08.12.12.22.04;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.217;
Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20120812192204.OGSX1165.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo209>
          for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:22:04 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.187.237.100])
	by eastrmimpo209 with cox
	id lvN31j00T2AfMYu01vN3uE; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:22:04 -0400
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020207.5028025C.000F,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=PwbhS8L__rOuqULQe6oA:9
 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <5028025C.3030802@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:22:04 -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> <1344741225.61800.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAOYwWb19Cvh6vB1-57CcGmC=dOK4Picnj3yijFMxZ0t=2cBaxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOYwWb19Cvh6vB1-57CcGmC=dOK4Picnj3yijFMxZ0t=2cBaxA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.241.217 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
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Mike S. wrote:
> If I am free and officially sanctioned to say "ui" disingenuously i.e.
> without really being happy, or I can say "ai" without even the slightest
> conscious real intention (at the time, perhaps speaking a complete lie)
> of follow-through, then I fear that "ui" and "ai" have no real meaning.
> Is this what is wanted?

Yes - or at least any "meaning" is orthogonal to the truth of the bridi 
being expressed.

> Consider what politicians would do with these
> conventions.  Consider what they already do speaking English.

One cannot stop people from misusing language.  That doesn't mean that 
one should define language for the intent of having it misused.

> If attitudinals don't assert at least a vague albeit real feeling felt
> by the speaker, what do attitudinals really do?

Express. Attitude.

Something that human beings do naturally, often without language, which 
makes it rather difficult to communicate via email or even by telephone 
in the same way we can communicate in person.  Attitudinals are an 
attempt to remedy that deficiency, and they only really work if we can 
use them fluently without thinking about them, in the same way that body 
language, tone of voice, and the occasional ejaculative expression works 
for natlang speakers.

   But why in a logical language, a predicate-based
> language, should the semantics of this small set of illocutionary
> constructions be extended to the inner states of the speaker?

The attitudinals are orthogonal to the predicate-base language.  They 
fulfil an expressive need of human beings that CANNOT be met with 
predictations, that are fundamentally NOT "logical".

Someone wishing to speak a purely "logical" language would never use 
attitudinals.

   Why
> _doesn't_ the speaker saying "ui" simply imply that the speaker is
> really gleki,

Because human beings are illogical.

> as a person would intuitively suspect?  What does it
> really mean otherwise?

It doesn't "mean" anything, truth-functionally.

> What do we gain from that dubious interpretation?

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

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.