From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 15 05:57:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 12:57:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 45953 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 12:57:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 12:57:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 12:57:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.b7.f5b40c0 (17386) for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:57:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b7.f5b40c0.285b6034_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8023 --part1_b7.f5b40c0.285b6034_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/15/2001 2:29:59 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 xod@sixgirls.org writes: > Give it up. You are wrong. The Book clearly shows that a'u is a > propositional attitude indicator. Page 302. >=20 Not too bad as a last ditch defense, but it doesn't work. =A0A glance at th= e=20 cases on that page of the book will show that not all -- and especially not= =20 {a'u} -- of what are called there "propositional attitude indicators" are=20 non-assertive. =A0Further, of course, you can't be repulsed by what ain't t= here=20 to be repulsive. Remember that it is a presupposition of this discussion that English "I am= =20 happy that..." is ambiguous and the ambiguity is exactly the one being=20 glossed over in your remark. =A0Can you demonstrate that the ambiguity --=20 apparently well-documented -- does not exist? =A0 A similar problem arises with "liar," which may be used for any verbal=20 deception, not merely those which involved deliberately uttering a statemen= t=20 known by the utterer to be false with the intention to deceive. I would have taken Lojbab's remark to have tended pretty much in the opposi= te=20 direction, i.e., as putting emotive responses to situations first and=20 reasoned discussion later, but he will speak for himself on this matter.=20 =A0None of this positional convention (other than as reaction to specific=20 aspects of a situation) makes much sense to me yet. (apologies to xod) --part1_b7.f5b40c0.285b6034_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/15/2001 2:29:59 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
xod@sixgirls.org writes:




Give it up. You are wrong= . The Book clearly shows that a'u is a
propositional attitude indicator. Page 302.






Not too bad as a last ditch defense, but it doesn't work. =A0A glance a= t the=20
cases on that page of the book will show that not all -- and especially= not=20
{a'u} -- of what are called there "propositional attitude indicators" a= re=20
non-assertive. =A0Further, of course, you can't be repulsed by what ain= 't there=20
to be repulsive.

<If .ui means "I am happy...", that is a provable logical assertion = about
the reality of my emotions. There are situations where you will call me= a
liar if I say .ui. Sales one, blatant denial another, politics a third.= >

Remember that it is a presupposition of this discussion that English "I= am=20
happy that..." is ambiguous and the ambiguity is exactly the one being= =20
glossed over in your remark. =A0Can you demonstrate that the ambiguity = --=20
apparently well-documented -- does not exist? =A0
A similar problem arises with "liar," which may be used for any verbal= =20
deception, not merely those which involved deliberately uttering a stat= ement=20
known by the utterer to be false with the intention to deceive.

<I conclude that you would agree with a tradition or habit of tendin= g 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!>

I would have taken Lojbab's remark to have tended pretty much in the op= posite=20
direction, i.e., as putting emotive responses to situations first and=20
reasoned discussion later, but he will speak for himself on this matter= .=20
=A0None of this positional convention (other than as reaction to specif= ic=20
aspects of a situation) makes much sense to me yet.

(apologies to xod) --part1_b7.f5b40c0.285b6034_boundary--