From robin@bilkent.edu.tr Tue Oct 08 13:40:34 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17z19a-0004H7-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:40:31 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD98012B9D for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:36:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: from bilkent.edu.tr (ppp134.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.111.134]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B54112B9A for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:36:31 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <3DA34314.1080905@bilkent.edu.tr> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 23:41:56 +0300 From: Robin Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism References: <171.1517cb9e.2ad302f1@aol.com> <20021008011202.GA39636@allusion.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020300 X-archive-position: 1989 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:32:01AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > >>In a message dated 10/6/2002 7:07:18 PM Central Daylight Time, >>lojban-out@lojban.org writes, quoting pc quoting him: >><< >> >>>>This is the oldest screw-up in Lojban (and Loglan before it). People who >>>>can't tell UI from "I am ... that..." bridi are suffering from the >>>> >>>original >>> >>>>malglico and clearly have not yet earned the right to play with the >>>> >>>language. >>> >>>> They just need to be gently asked which they really mean (Do you care >>>> >>>how I >>> >>>>feel or do you care that ...?) and reminded how to say the one they want. >>>> >>> >>> >>>>This is a clear case of the parse (often) not giving the intended >>>> >>>meaning. >>> >>>>And all the bad usage in the world will not change that. >>>> >>>Ok, I read the above paragraph about 4 times, and I can't make heads >>>or tails of it. Clearly it is intended to be insulting, but you >>>wrote it so poorly I have no idea what you're even complaining >>>about, which just makes it look asinine. However, I'll give you >>>the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually *are* talking about >>>*something*, however incoherently. >>> >>>Would you like to try again? >>> > [zu'o kasta'a] > >>The rest is just the standard policy for dealing with the error. Ascertain >>that it was an error, that the user really meant to say the other thing, and >>then gently (two-by- fours are OK after a few recurrences, but dynamite is >>never appropriate) remind the misuser of the distinction and how to make it. >> > > Ok; I agree that there is a gramatical difference, but not that > there is a real semantic difference (except perhaps in which part > of the claim is more important (the fact you are happy, or whatever > the other claim is))... > > I think it's more than a grammatical difference (in the narrow sense of the word). If I say "mi gleki", I am making a proposition; i.e. a statement about the world which has a truth value, just as it would if I were to say "le mi speni cu gleki". If I say ".ui" I am expressing a feeling of happiness; it has no more truth value than smiling (hence that interminable thread about ironic attitudinals some time back). robin.tr -- "We do not imprison ourselves with laws, or impoverish ourselves with money" - Iain Banks Robin Turner IDMYO Bilkent Universitesi Ankara 06533 Turkey www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin