Sender: richardt@pimout1-int.prodigy.net
Message-ID: <3B2A7FAE.C657EE98@flash.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:35:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to   attitudinals)
References: <1e.173f472f.285be2e5@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Richard Todd <richardt@flash.net>
Content-Length: 1312
Lines: 31

pycn wrote:
>If Robin CA's point is correct, then, as 
>I understand it, at least {a'unaicai} requires the assertion 
>of the sentence (though I admit that that may not be what he 
>meant, since he did not phrase it that way). 
 
So, you are unsure about whether {a'unaicai} requires the assertion of
the sentence, and skeptical when others make a claim one way or
another.  Ok, let's continue....

>The only 
>example of {a'u} pretty clearly has it assertive -- but I 
>can imagine a twisted reading of that example that made 
>it non-assertive, so even then the book is unclear.  

I can imagine both versions of most sentences I've seen with
attitudinals.  Though context does often make one version much more
far-fetched than the other, it can't always work for everyone (and the
more complex combinations of attitudinals likely pose more complex
problems--we can't even agree on the scope of {a'o}!).

If you can say these things and not see the beauty of just allowing all
attitudinals in both forms, without having to question the speaker's
intent, then we are very different people.

Richard, who wishes he could join the fun by making a claim about his
computer use during the Kennedy administration, but wasn't yet
born...I'd talk about my Reagan days, but that just seems pathetic
now...