Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 06:57:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712171157.GAA19397@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: la'e X-To: a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 837 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 06:57:30 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. 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. 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. lojbab