From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Jun 13 08:44:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 15:44:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 24785 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (156.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.156]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5DFTw602972 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010613111927.00da36e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:35:13 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <20010612170520.X14438@digitalkingdom.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7918 At 05:05 PM 06/12/2001 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >Here's an extension that I think I like: > >1. In a sentence by itself, UI is a bare emotion. >2. At the front of a sentence, UI modifies the assertive nature of the >whole bridi. >3. After a particular sumti, UI modifies the assertive nature of the >element, but leaves the assertive nature of the bridi alone. >4. After the brivla, UI does not modify the assertive nature at all. > >Note that #2 contravenes the book. This ignores other places that a UI can appear. The correct generalization is that UI reflects the speaker's attitude when contemplating that element of language that the UI attaches to, with the scope of the attitudinal determined by the scope of the language element. At the beginning of the sentence, attached to ".i" the scope is the entire sentence and the speaker is reacting to that sentence (but if attached to ni'o refers to an entire paragraph). At the end of a sentence, attached to a final vau, the scope is the same. In a sentence by itself within a longer text stream, the expression is "point in time" and doesn't associate with any particular bit of text, but thus in effect ambiguously refers to any or all preceding text and/or all following text assuming that one or the other is stimulating the emotive response. I see no reason for this "modifying the assertive nature" language. What seems to be the case is that it is pragmatics and not grammar that determines whether an attitudinal has propositional effect, with the pragmatics being specific to the particular emotion and when/how it is usually felt; I think we should leave it at that. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org