Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:16:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801281416.JAA20425@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 1cf60d56cf45300281e1c11a40b3d445 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 28 09:43:23 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. >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. ni'o co'omi'e dn.