From richardt@flash.net Wed Jun 13 17:46:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 00:46:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 99338 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 00:46:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 00:46:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 00:46:35 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.101.196]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5E0kXQ82598 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:46:33 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout4-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B27F8C1.AFB2B2B1@flash.net> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:35:29 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7961 Craig wrote: > When was the last time anyone was misunderstood about it? Recently, I think (though not specifically about {a'o}). I don't want to get into a meta-argument about when this argument really started, so if you don't agree I'll say in advance that it's fine with me. I thought this really started when pycn's reading of one of xod's sentences was the exact opposite of xod's intended meaning. The essence of the misunderstanding was whether pycn was correct to assume that xod's sentence was an assertion. (I'm not saying that pycn made a mistake reading the sentence--the fact that both sides had merit, IMO, is why a convention would be such a good thing) Despite some objections I've heard to the placement proposal, I don't think adding this piece of information to the attitudinal does anything to make it 1) more like a selbri or 2) less emotive. It just cuts the room for misunderstandings in half. The exact relationship of the attitudinal to the sentence is still unspecified. Had the Book (which I don't own yet, so I'm going by others' statements) been consistent with itself about attitudinals, I doubt the conversation would have gone so far. But since the claim has been made that _no_ usage is completely consistent with the Book, it doesn't seem too blasphemous to set a standard that is consistent, (mostly) compatible, and simple. Here is the text of the mail with the misunderstanding I'm referring to: ---------- Well, I did not in fact claim that: I said I would probably have (given the choices between "foolish" and "evil" for two events) reversed xod's choices. Happily ther were other choices and I made those. And xod does indeed *assert* that translating Alice is evil. xod also *expresses* a number of emotional responses to that claim, some of them apparently at variance with the claim made -- though they might be merely shock at finding oneself making such a claim. I am still unsure what empathetic opining is --xod got so into my head that agreement resulted? The sentence in question is < .a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e > in which the only assertion is < le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci >; the rest is emotive response. I suspect xod meant the assertion to be in quotes or some of the emotive expressions to be assertions to the effect that xod reesponded thus to my assertion that... But what is written is written, and I refuse to be blamed for taking people at their word. Richard