Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Fri, 3 Jul 92 01:26 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA25804; Thu, 2 Jul 92 17:37:44 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA16627; Thu, 2 Jul 92 16:50:37 -0400 Message-Id: <9207022050.AA16627@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0721; Thu, 02 Jul 92 16:49:54 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf033) id 9219; Thu, 02 Jul 92 16:47:29 EDT Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 16:25:25 BST Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Phone game: TV To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson"'s message of Tue, 30 Jun 1992 17:39:46 -0400 <1509.9207021233@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jul 3 01:26:27 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 17:39:46 -0400 > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 18:19:11 BST > >From: CJ FINE > > >Ivan comments on the Phone Game: > > >> No interjection can change the meaning of the sentence _I am a member_ > >> to `I am not a member' or `I want to be a member'. And attitudinals > >> are just that, interjections. They show your evaluation of the fact > >> reported, but don't alter the fact that the fact is reported. > > >I agree entirely. [I think I have not followed this in the past, but I > >endorse Ivan's opinion and intend to follow the precept henceforward. > >"ko na tavla .e'anai", not "ko .e'anai tavla", for "don't speak".] > > Hmmm. For the most part, makes sense, but I'm a little unclear on the fine > points. What would {ko tavla .e'anai} mean? Nothing that you would be likely to say. But. > Can .e'anai only be used with negatives? In imperative sentences, yes. > What about {ko na tavla .e'a}? Nothing that you would be likely to say. (The attitudinal is only attached to {tavla}, the {na} is outside its scope.) But, as I said in my response to Bob, if you want some attitudinals to negate the claim made by the rest of the sentence, make a complete list of them, so that I, who have never thought of it in this way, shall know which ones they are. I mean, if you assert something, you'll be asserting it with {.oi} as with {.oinai}, with {.ui} as with {.uinai}. Why should you be negating it with {.e'anai}? > Waaah, everyone's ganging up on me, just 'cause I'm wrong... :-) Not everyone, just Colin and I, and we have to support one another. :-) > Actually, I still don't think we really *must* have the causal link. The > English doesn't have it, nor does it have to be seen as implied. "So long > as you haven't started sitting up straight (during the time before you > start doing so), you are forbidden from watching TV." Doesn't imply that > you'll be permitted to watch afterwards, not necessarily. But you had made the telly watching the main predicate of the clause, and the sitting up was a temporal adjunct. On the other hand, I don't know - I reckon the clausal link wouldn't have been lost if you had said {do na catlu le se tivni}. As it is, it could read `You'll watch the telly until you sit up straight' - imagine telly watching as a punishment, not exactly implausible, we're told - but then the prohibitive attitudinal spoils it again. Damn. Ivan