From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Jun 15 13:55:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 20:55:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 20137 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 20:54:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 20:54:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 20:54:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5FKsNc10773 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:54:22 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) In-Reply-To: <20010615131932.H14438@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8045 On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:29:16PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:11:54PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/14/2001 6:30:41 PM Central Daylight Time, > > > > > lojbab@lojban.org writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Back to the beginning then. I would like to point out that I understood from > > > > > the beginning what xod meant to say and my point was -- and still is -- that > > > > > he failed to say it. None of the attitudinals involved are problematic in > > > > > the sense of changing the truth value of the claim, which remains that > > > > > translating Alice is evil. xod expresses strong repulsion for this > > > > > situation, disbelief in it and wonder at it. He also gives as his support > > > > > for the claim that I (or someone unspecified) think it. But he still asserts > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give it up. You are wrong. The Book clearly shows that a'u is a > > > > propositional attitude indicator. Page 302. > > > > > > You weren't using .a'u. You were using pe'idai. Much less obvious. > > > > > > > > Do you see "a'u" in the sentence above? > > I see .a'unaicai, which is glossed as 'extreme repulsion'. Repulsion as > to an idea does not, as far as I am aware, imply that the idea is wrong. That's correct. But the issue is: is a'u a propositional indicator like e'o, or a pure emotional attitudinal like ui? pc is trying to convince me, or others, that the a'u still maintained the assertion of the bridi, resulting in that I mistakenly said that translating Alice was evil. But the book, and my interpretations of the opinions of Cowan and Lojbab, and the understanding of all the readers besides pc all indicate that it was completely proper usage of a'u. As for pe'idai, that might be incorrect or controversial, but we might need another two weeks to sort that out. (My usage is intentionally experimental! I am constantly exploring as I use Lojban. This seems to irritate a select few who prize computer-like perfection above creativity and exploration and the resultant failures.) None of this is a distraction from the disturbing fact that pc launched a withering, uncalled-for attack on the translation of Alice. As for flamewars, my experience has certainly taught me that the best response to a troll -- which pc is undoubtedly -- is a loud *plonk*. Nothing bothers them more. It might be amusing or educational to carry on in Lojban, but we see his reading skills aren't fit for the task. So, plonk it is. ----- 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!