From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 14 15:33:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 14 Jul 2001 22:33:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 32624 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2001 22:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Jul 2001 22:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jul 2001 22:33:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id r.d3.178ed1ea (4050) for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:33:53 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Sorta about attitudes and assertions and the like To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d3.178ed1ea.288222d1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8573 --part1_d3.178ed1ea.288222d1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/14/2001 10:58:05 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > Are you by any chance a fan of avantgarde postmodern British poetry (e.g. > J. H. Prynne)? > The only British poet I can think of having read is S.J. Forrest, who is preVatican, not post-modern. Does that mean we have emotions we express but that we cannot name? Possible but requiring considerable argument. I suppose you mean rather the Express(1, p) part, which is rather unlikely on the face of it -- as the oddity of the "full surface form" suggests,though the report of the event does make sense, so it is the performative, speech-act usage that is suspect. Maybe Express and the like don't have first-person, peformative, forms (a different set of transformations of the underlying bit -- if you do believe in it). Or you may think the whole theory is a crock. Both the last two are quite respectable views and I am inclined to be hospitable to them at least. I think that is a real problem, though in this case we are more or less given that the emotion expressed by {ui} is described by {gleki}. Still, that is a hypothesis that could be defeated by showing that {ui} is not factive but {gleki} is factive, or conversely. So we need some independent way of lining these critters up (unless you really meant that they can't be). I sure don't want to change UI into selbri in any sense of that expression. They serve two different functions fundamentally, even if in some languages -- and maybe even in Lojban sometimes (hopefully well-marked) -- the selbri can do some of the work of a UI. Given all the "makes this a that"s there are in Lojban, I would be surprised if there is not a "makes following selbri and attitudinal" somewhere (though I did not find it). The exercise here was to find some place for people who did want to derive UI pragmatics (or whatever it is) from that for brivla. --part1_d3.178ed1ea.288222d1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/14/2001 10:58:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:



Are you by any chance a fan of avantgarde postmodern British poetry (e.g.
J. H. Prynne)?




The only British poet I can think of having read is S.J. Forrest, who is
preVatican, not post-modern.

<I dispute that in English the topmost, 'performative'/attitudinal predicate
can ever be expressed lexically (by a verb with clausal complement). This is
one reason why I don't baulk at Lojban expressing propositional attitudes by
UI, which are outside the logical apparatus.>
Does that mean we have emotions we express but that we cannot name?  Possible
but requiring considerable argument.  I suppose you mean rather the
Express(1, p) part, which is rather unlikely on the face of it -- as the
oddity of the "full surface form" suggests,though the report of the event
does make sense, so it is the performative, speech-act usage that is suspect.
 Maybe Express and the like don't have first-person, peformative, forms (a
different set of transformations of the underlying bit -- if you do believe
in it).  Or you may think the whole theory is a crock.  Both the last two are
quite respectable views and I am inclined to be hospitable to them at least.

<Not really, because you don't know in advance what the corresponding
predicate
is. Even if gleki might be factive, it doesn't necessarily follow that ui
would
be too, because it is not a given that gleki = ui.>

I think that is a real problem, though in this case we are more or less given
that the emotion expressed by {ui} is described by {gleki}.  Still, that is a
hypothesis that could be defeated by showing that {ui} is not factive but
{gleki} is factive, or conversely. So we need some independent way of lining
these critters up (unless you really meant that they can't be).

<I'd like to see an array of pertinent examples that demand changing UI into
selbri>

I sure don't want to change UI into selbri in any sense of that expression.  
They serve two different functions fundamentally, even if in some languages
-- and maybe even in Lojban sometimes (hopefully well-marked) -- the selbri
can do some of the work of a UI.  Given all the "makes this a that"s there
are in Lojban, I would be surprised if there is not a "makes following selbri
and attitudinal" somewhere (though I did not find it). The exercise here was
to find some place for people who did want to derive UI pragmatics (or
whatever it is) from that for brivla. --part1_d3.178ed1ea.288222d1_boundary--