Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:56:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711141756.MAA08468@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1440 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 14 12:56:11 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >>>Yes, but it's a little more complicated than that. The attitudinal is a >>>sign for the 'face value' emotion, as per the refgram, and the 'face >>>value' emotion is a sign for the real emotion, as per the context. The >>>second part of this does not involve language, so no language rules apply >>>to it. >> >>I do not presume to exclude this from language. > >Languages have no place making such rules. How can we possibly know what is or is not the limit of language. I'm far from being a Chomskyan, but the boundary between biology and conscious choice in expression is quite uncertain. As fir what is language - I think it is a matter of definition. I choose to include all means of expression which CAN be consciously controlled at least in part. Lojban as a language design can prescribe for that entire range of expression. Whether people will or will not follow that prescription is of course an individual decision. But Lojban is also among other things designed to test the sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. If it did nothing that "language has no place doing" in terms of possible effect on human thought and culture, then it pretty much could NOt have a SWH -related effect. It happens that I think the attitudinals are an area where I think such effects may result, but that presumes that people use them as intended - as expressions of emotions and not manipulative statements primarily aimed at affecting others' emotions