From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Jun 15 04:18:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 41604 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5FBIAm08573 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:18:10 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: An Agreement? (was: An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010615054742.00d1e510@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8022 On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 12:09 AM 06/15/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >la lojbab cusku di'e > > >But plausibly it can mean "I am happy now" about a situation (bridi) that I > > >am presently considering which is not a present reality, which > > >pragmatically often means "I would be happy if". > > > >No, "I would be happy if" is very different from "I am happy > >that it could be so". Only the second one can be handled with {ui}. > >Would-be happiness has to be {a'o} or {au}. > > I am daydreaming about my ideal world when I say the first. At the time I > make that sentence, it is true. Then I realize it is only in my mind, and > add a sentence that indicates it is conditional. > > (Hey, I'm not saying that these unusual cases are common, merely that the > rules of thumb are reflecting a pragmatic norm that simply doesn't always > hold. .ui usually means that we are asserting the bridi, because we WOULD > normally recognize and use .a'o or au for would-be happiness. I reject the > impossibility of no other pragmatic case.) (and from another mail:) > No, because I don't want people to have to THINK (i.e. "reason") while they > are attitudinally emoting. They should express what they feel at the time > they feel it, and the few rules we have for attitudinal expression are > really just conventions that attempt to describe the pragmatics that > realistically will apply if someone just expresses things naturally. I conclude that you would agree with a tradition or habit of tending to put UI in front of the bridi when pragmatically meaning to discuss a hypothetical, and putting it elsewhere when emoting while issuing an assertion. Such a habit would likely sort things out in my head as I speak! ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!