From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 06 11:26:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 6 Jun 2001 18:26:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 28236 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 18:26:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jun 2001 18:26:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2001 18:26:32 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 157i0j-0004a6-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:26:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:26:29 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher Message-ID: <20010606112629.U7842@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7592 On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 06:25:18PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:24:38 PM Central Daylight Time, > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > >On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:27:21PM -0400, Pycyn@aol.com wrote: > >> Relevantly to the matter under discussion, xod has a standing claim -- > >> by deeds, he may be too modest to assert it -- to be in an upper > >> echelon of Lojbanists, below the top four or five perhaps, but quite > >> high up, yet he regularly makes these kinds of simple errors, often > >> falls into incredibly complex construction for simple situations, and > >> not infrequently insists that he -- not the Book or someone above him > >> in the hierarchy -- is right. > > > >Umm, but you are insisting _exactly_ the same thing right now.? And > >rather more arrogantly than he has ever done, that I've seen. > > > >What happened to usage carrying the day?> > > Excuse me? Where have I insisted that I am right except as laid out in the > Book? I am just reading things by the book: "Attitudinals make no claim: they > are expressions of attitude, not of facts or alleged facts. As a result, > attitudinals themselves have no truth value, nor do they directly affect the > truth value of a bridi they modify." (13.2 p. 298) So, what is asserted in a > sentence is not affected by the speaker's response to it. Ah. You are correct. I apologize. > Now, if someone wants to argue that that ain't so, regardless of what the > Book says, or if what the Book says is inconsistent with other points in > itself or the general program, I am perfectly happy to argue. But so far > this is not the case here. I'll argue it, but it's not the point. He stated what he believed to be your opinion. The truth value has only to do whith whether the statement is true from some point of view, since it's an opinion statement, IIRC. He made it clear, IMO, tho the point of view in question was not his own. So the truth of the bridi depends on the opinion of whomever he was empathizing with. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/