Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:34:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801282334.SAA10720@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: e64a7bf381abd4c3aa729f9f608da3f0 X-Mozilla-Status: 8013 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 29 12:35:54 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >>>.i pe'i .iadai le nuzba befi la .ia,us cu fatci > >>But you never know with attitudinals. Is that to be taken as >> i pe'i ( iada'i (le nuzba ... cu fatci) ) >>i.e., is my opinion about the others' belief? I'm not sure. Maybe it means >>that it is my opinion _and_ others' belief that... > >This is a good point. Why has the scope of attitudinals been left ambiguous? I > reckon there are only two possible interpretations: 'about' and 'and'. There > needs to a convention for choosing which is wanted. There should be a convention, but I'm not sure how much the issue has been explored. I think that the "and" interpretation is what the refgram suggests, but then the other one seems more useful... >>Also, pe'i only works for current opinions. In this case, the original >>says "I thought that ...", which suggests that the opinion may now >>be under reconsideration, perhaps he no longer thinks that. > >The cmavo ba'a does that. > > .i ba'anai pe'i .iadai le nuzba befi la .ia,us cu fatci > I remember thinking someone else believed that Yahoo news is fact. Yes! That works if each attitudinal refers to all that follows in the sentence. co'o mi'e xorxes