From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Jun 17 23:56:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 18 Jun 2001 06:56:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 50691 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2001 06:56:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jun 2001 06:56:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jun 2001 06:56:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.96] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2001 06:56:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:56:39 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Message-ID: <9gk8n7+26df@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <3B2BED48.8101.4DC907@localhost> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 6396 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.104.218.72 From: "A.W.T." X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8121 --- In lojban@y..., "Daniel Gudlat" wrote: > On 15 Jun 2001, at 12:12, Anthony Roach wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:37:16PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > > Is a smile an assertion to you? > > > > > > > > No, because there is no proposition involved. > > > > > I'm new to this list, I don't know much Lojban, and I've never been > > formally introduced to you all (Hi!), but I think I have idea on how > > to clarify this for xod and others: > > > > This is an assertion: "I am smiling". > > This is not an assertion: ":-)" > > > > The former is asserting something about myself, and the later is just > > me smiling. > > > "I am smiling." and ":-)" are on two different levels. The former is > > an assertion that involves the later (i.e. my smile). > > > > The same discussion can be applied to "mi gleki" and ".ui". The former > > asserts that I am happy, and the later conveyes my happiness to you in > > a textual form. > > > Anyway, I think it's great that Lojban has attitudinals so we don't > > have to use things like ":-)" and ">:-|" to convey emotions in > > written or spoken communication, and if we turn the attitudinals > > into assertions, then what's the point of even having them? > > Thank you, Anthony, thank you. As appalled as I am from this ongoing > discussion about a topic not even one of the participants seems to > really have a grasp of, I'm unspeakably grateful for your levelheaded > and insightful contribution to this shambles. I, too, have not yet > progressed beyond the "mi klama le zarci" stage of lojban learning, > although I've been on this list for about a year and a half. But the > fact that there is at least one other member of the lojban list with > a sane attitude about attitudinals is deeply reassuring (and no small > bit disconcerting as well, as there really seems to be only two or > three of us... :-( ) > > Since you basically said it all in the text quoted above, this is > probably where I should stop, but being foolish and in the need to > rant, I will first pick apart a few contributions of la xorxes - not > because I dislike him or what he said more than anyone elses > contributions to this thread, but because he provides a few nice > hooks to dangle a rant from. Then, I'll try to state, as calmly and > matter-of-factly as possible, my take on the matter. > > Warning, the following going to be rantish in nature, so don your > asbestos underwear before reading on! > > la xorxes cusku di'e: > > la lojbab cusku di'e > > > > a'o mi caca'a klama > > > > The only way I can understand that sentence is as non-assertive: > > "I hope I'm actually going". If you use a'o followed by what > > you intend as an assertion, I will almost certainly misunderstand > > you. Hopefully you won't take {xu mi caca'a klama} or {da'i mi > > caca'a klama} as assertions as well! > > > If he believes that he is actually going, he shouldn't say that he > > hopes that he is actually going. > > Huh? If you want pacna, you bloody well know where to find it! > > He states that he is going. He also expresses a feeling of hope, > which probably is connected to his going, what exactly that > connection is, is not made clear. Reading anything more into this > sentence is taking the list of attitudinals and bridi phrases posted > by Rob Speer (?) and making it into a equivalence table. If this is > really what you want, I would urge you to re-read chapter 13 of the > Reference Grammar, then take a long calm stroll outside and think > about what you read for a while before posting to this thread again! > > Oh, and please leave the poor discursives, observationals and other > members of selma'o UI - a purely grammatical category - out of this. > We are talking attitudinals only! > > And in another email, la xorxes says: > > They are not assertions. If you say {ui ko'a klama}, and I > > say {na go'i}, I am not saying "No, you're not happy", I'm > > saying "No, ko'a is not coming". If you say {mi gleki le nu > > ko'a klama}, then my {na go'i} does mean "No, you're not > > happy". > > Yes, that's right. But you seem to be a little confused as to what > exactly your standpoint in all of this is (no more so than several > other participants in this raging battle, I might add): ui mi klama > says that I come, while a'o mi klama says that I merely hope to? > Isn't that a little on the contradictory side of things? > > more composed after this.> > > Yes, the RefGram is contradictory in this as well, but it clearly > states that the whole distinction of propositional and pure > attitudinals is shaky and has been made mainly for the purpose of > explanation, "it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific > points". So why the freaking hell (sorry, I'll be calm after this - > promise) is everyone trying to read more into this than is clearly > stated to be there in the first place? > > Attitudinals express attitudes, if you want to assert anything, > that's what bridi are there for. Attittudinals are lojbans ingenious, > culturally neutral, and unambigous way to express emotions and are > therefore the more or less exact (though vastly extended) equivalent > of smileys. I like this a lot and I'll attack anyone who tries to > make them into the short version of some bridi claim or other, > because, as Anthony has so nicely stated, what then would be the > point of having the attitudinals in the first place? And, perhaps > even more important: How then are we supposed to express our attitude > reliably and culturally neutral, when a simple smile might get us > gutted by the next Kzinti? > > So that everyone has the chance to call me a hypocrite, I'll add one > more thing: This discussion is without the slightest bit of doubt > exactly one of those things which should be discussed in lojban > exclusively by fluent speakers of the language, as Lojbab has already > remarked. > > So I would request that we all let this issue rest immediately until > the day a number of fluent lojbanists feel the need to discuss it > again. Hopefully, the discussion will be more civilized and a lot > more fruitfull than what we had here until now. .i .ui tcidu di'u .ije mi gleki ;-) .iki'ecai mi'e .aulun.