From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Jun 13 12:15:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 19:15:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 61228 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 19:13:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 19:13:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 19:13:46 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB7559E01B4; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:13:57 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:09:01 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <38.17853740.28591317@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7930 Actually, what I meant was that the sentence is not asserted if the attitudinal is attached to the sumti. Except that in E I actually meant if it is one of those. But I think my plan still needs work, I'm hoping now instead for something so simple we all wish we had thought of it before to come along. Of course, we could use the gismu for the attitudinals to some degree: if we want to say 'I hope that you come' we say 'mi pacna lenu do klama' but if we want to say 'I am hopeful; you come' we say 'a'o do klama' so that a bridi with an attitudinal ALWAYS asserts the bridi, if we want to not assert it we do that with gismu. That's my new proposal, and it's a lot simpler than the other one. It still isn't perfect - I'm sure .ai would have a meaning, but since none of us know what it would be we'd stop using it. -----Original Message----- From: sentto-44114-7939-992459050-ragnarok=pobox.com@returns.onelist.com [mailto:sentto-44114-7939-992459050-ragnarok=pobox.com@returns.onelist.com]O n Behalf Of pycyn@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:04 PM To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In a message dated 6/13/2001 12:39:20 AM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes: E. An attitudinal attached to a sumti does not assert the sentence to be true IF the attitudinal is not: Attitudinals DO NOT ASSERT anything, so cannot be true or false. This "rule" does not make sense. Since attitudinals don't assert anyhting, they don't strictly imply anything either (maybe only a terminological problem?) And so on. This seem essentially to do away with attitudinals as such and replace them with only assertions about my mental states. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.