On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:12 AM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de= > wrote:

coi rodo

please keep in mind I'm a {cnino lobtadni} and everything I say
might be complete nonsense.

coi .van.

It ha= s to be {cnino lobytadni} or {cnino jbotadni} due to phonotactic constraint= s. =A0But no worries, I myself am a {vitno cnino jbotadni} here.

=A0

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:42:18AM -0400, Mike S. wrote:
> It's not quite that simple as Xorxes has pointed out. =A0Some atti= tudinals
> definitely do affect the truth conditions of the bridi they're app= lied to,
> namely the ones that shift the bridi into what in natlangs would be ca= lled
> an irrealis mood. =A0Perhaps "a'o" is the archetypical e= xample.

I would totally agree to {da'i}, because this actually means that= you _suppose_
something, whether or not it is true.

However I do not agree to {a'o}. I just read through the list of cmavos= in UI1
and I incline to think all words in there do not modify truth values.
(maybe they do by pragmatics, but they do not by truth-functional calculus)=

I found CLL =A713.3 reg= arding a-series and e-series attitudinals clear enough:

As mentioned at the beginning of Section 2, attitudinals may be divided into two groups, the pure emotion=20 indicators explained in that section, and a contrasting group which may=20 be called the =93propositional attitude indicators=94. These indicators=20 establish an internal, hypothetical world which the speaker is reacting=20 to, distinct from the world as it really is. Thus we may be expressing=20 our attitude towards =93what the world would be like if ...=94, or more=20 directly stating our attitude towards making the potential world a=20 reality.

In general, the bridi paraphrases of pure emo= tions look (in English)=20 something like =93I=92m going to the market, and I=92m happy about it=94. T= he=20 emotion is present with the subject of the primary claim, but is=20 logically independent of it. Propositional attitudes, though, look more=20 like =93I intend to go to the market=94, where the main claim is logically= =20 subordinate to the intention: I am not claiming that I am actually going to the market, but merely that I intend to.

In fairness, the BPFK secti= on on irrealis attitudinals mentions some disagreement in the speaking comm= unity on this matter.=A0 I hadn't realized this until I read that secti= on more carefully today.

If a soldier goes to war, his wife might say something like:
"He'll come back" without actually knowing that he will.
You could say that's the same as "I hope he will come back", = but
this second sentence leaves the possibility that he will not come back
whereas the first one denies that possibility.

Rig= ht.=A0 In this case the wife wants to make an unequivocal assertion despite= her fear. (For this reason I think she'd leave off {a'o} if she we= re speaking Lojban.)

=A0

I would like to translate the first sentence with something like
{.i a'o lo speni be mi be'o ba xrukla}
and the second sentence with
{.i mi pacna lo nu lo speni be mi be'o ba xrukla}

As I just argued I think those sentences are rather different in what they<= br> say, though the second is something of an objective description of the firs= t.