From jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sat Feb 02 23:19:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jimc@math.ucla.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 3 Feb 2002 07:19:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 10625 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 07:19:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2002 07:19:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bodhi.math.ucla.edu) (128.97.4.253) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2002 07:19:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (bodhi.math.ucla.edu [128.97.4.253]) by bodhi.math.ucla.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA19892 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:19:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:19:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: To: Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban]Bibletra... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Jim Carter X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810565 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13171 On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote: > Yes, but... Consider "What big eyes you have!" -- It would generally > be accepted that this has propositional content -- "You have big eyes" > -- even though the utterance is not a claim. Xod, though, wants to > go one step further and say that the propositional content is > "I exclaim (that you have big eyes)". It's at that point that we > diverge. Well, yes and no. Certainly the point of that utterance is not to make a claim about style, or even a claim about eyes. But if Little Red Riding Hood said the utterance in a flat and glum tone, the stylistic markings (!) would *falsely* represent that style. If some literary critic decided to deconstruct the story there could be endless wrangles over whether it was properly an exclamation, or an ejaculation, or a this or a that. So like I said, truth value isn't the point of the utterance or of its decorations, but the constative nature of the decorations can pop up without warning, and you have to have the flexibility to deal with it. pc said that the "everything is everything" interpretation is considered old-fashioned today. I suspect the reason is that if you're going to argue over what an utterance means, it's more productive to argue over its main point -- and I'll agree with that. But let's not deny the constative (and performative) aspects of attitudinal indicators just because examples are clearer if their main point is emphasized. James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Email: jimc@math.ucla.edu http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)