From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Jun 12 17:39:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 00:39:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 22121 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 00:29:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 00:29:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 00:29:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5D0TTQ19988 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:29:29 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <20010612165441.W14438@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7883 On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 08:50:24PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > > > > > la ritcrd cusku di'e > > > > > > >The attitudinal placement idea solves the same problem IMO opinion, > > > >which is why I think it would be a fine way to go as well. > > > > > > Maybe it is, I haven't had time yet to look at how it would work > > > for more than the couple of examples presented. Would it apply > > > to {xu} as well, for example? > > > > > > > > In usage, when people want to ask about the truth of a bridi, they put xu > > in front. When they want to ask about the validity of a certain component > > of the bridi, they put xu right after it. This sounds quite like the new > > proposal to me. > > Except that > > do klama le zarci xu > > under the proposed rule would still be an assertion of > > do klama le zarci Well, the xu affects the le zarci, so the sentence only still claims do klama. I am not sure if this is the way it is currently. ----- 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!