Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:40:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712171640.LAA27493@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: la'e X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1382 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 11:41:09 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >> As you yourself have said, "kau" is an attitudinal, and sentences > >> with attitudinals in them don't necessarily allow of logical > >> analysis. > > > >I hasten to add, though, that kau (or Q-kau) very much affects > >truth-conditional meaning. > > The pattern, well-established in Lojban, is that in general, if a bridi is > true without the attitudinal, it is considered true with the attitudinal. What is even more well-established (since I once maintained a contrary view of which I was disabused) is that the truth-conditional insignificance of attitudinals is merely a statistical tendency (i.e. most UI are like that) rather than a firm rule. Some Ui (e.g. po`o) can most definitely affect truth-conditional meaning, and kau is one of them. If this were not so, then the prescription would be incoherent. > There are of course other conventions found in logic. But I consider a > xu question "true" if it is true without the xu, and this seems like it should > apply to a xukau as well. {xu broda} = {ma jei broda} rather than {broda} > There are attitudinals that can change or murk up truth vakue, but they > generally do so by bringing in an internal world to contrast with the real > world so it becomes unclear which world applies to the bridi truth value. > I see no unreal world invoked by xukau. xukau doesn't invoke an unreal world, that's true. --And