From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Jun 13 18:15:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 01:15:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 32332 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 01:15:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 01:15:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.121) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 01:15:55 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5E1ETW08323 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:14:29 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15ALfi-0000RZ-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:11:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:11:42 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) Message-ID: <20010613211142.B1616@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20010613164226.O14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010613164226.O14438@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7963 On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:42:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:39:51PM -0400, Craig wrote: > > Givent that there wasn't any misunderstood comment to start this thread to > > my knowledge, how's this proposal sound? > > > > 1. We will assume that attitudinals have the meaning suggested by actual > > usage. > > 2. We will use attitudinals so that people understand what we are saying. > > 3. We will shut the hell up about our fixes to attitudinal problems until > > there is a problem to post about. I'll respond to Craig here. I find that this discussion is very useful. You may be sensing some emotional tension to the debate which isn't actually there. Would it have been better if nothing was happening on the jboste? > You don't think that the question of whether or not the speaker of > > .a'o mi klama > > is asserting that they actually will/have gone is a problem? I don't think I would have phrased it like Craig, but no, that's not a problem. The book says that "a" attitudinals change the assertive nature of the sentence. So they do. Assigning (rough) bridi equivalents to attitudinals shows that this distinction only has to be made in English. -- Rob Speer