From - Mon Feb 26 10:39:34 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA29858 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 01:06:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199602260606.BAA29858@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 5E6DAC06 ; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 0:18:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:46:14 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: short response to Lojbab on discursives To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1948 > Discursive refers to words that are abbreviations for metalinguistic > claims and modifiers. "However" and "In addition" and "For example" and > "etc." are simple examples. But "etc." modifies a truth claim in that > it indicates that there is more tot he claim than is stated. "and vice > versa", and "respectively" also affect truth claims because they serve > as abbreviations for complex bridi that are related in structure to the > current one. So the so-called discursives are just a dustbin, and are not in fact all abbreviations for metalinguistic claims. > Related point from another post: > >(ii) both that koa believes that I move the > >earth, and that I intend that I move the earth. But it definitely does > >not mean koa believes that I intend to move the earth. So I would > >contend that UI can affect the truth conditions of utterances but not of > >all bridi. And, since "already" is something you'd want to say in > >subordinate as well as main bridi, UI is the wrong selmao for it. > But "already", and most other discursives are not something that are > affected by speaker vs. ko'a oriented. Indeed that may be one major > difference between attitudinals and discursives. UI selma'o refers only > to the grammar, and not to the semantics. It is possible to place UI in > a sentence with long scope or with short scope. > One problem with your analysis of this example is that you are forgetting > the metalinguistic nature of UI, whatever its scope. There is no way UI > can get at the subordinate selbri "move", and substitute for it a > different selbri "intend". The problem is (1) that I had thought the UI had a metalinguistic nature, (2) that you, incredibly, appear to have thought I was forgetting this, (3) that you continue to claim that UI has a metalinguistic nature, (4) that you continue to claim that UI does not have a metalinguistic nature. coo, mie and