From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Oct 08 14:33:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 8 Oct 2002 21:33:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 31242 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 21:33:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2002 21:33:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 21:33:18 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021008213316.FRQE12192.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:33:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021008171800.0338aec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:27:55 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] ui and truth (was: Re: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism) In-Reply-To: <36.2eb3ea22.2ad4919a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16485 At 03:52 PM 10/8/02 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: And som I have no idea what they do or mean ({e'i} for example). %^) I should think this one is easy in the current context. And, when using naka'e instead of ka'enai could mark it with .e'i, and when using ka'enai could mark it with .e'inai ><< >And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure >emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can >be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that >...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning >``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion >and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of >explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points." > >> > From the historical view, this was a cop-out, brought about by the fact > that there were cases which seemed (as noted) not always to go one way -- > and a significant number of people who were still in the state of > malglico confusion on the issue even in the clear cases (there seem > always to be some -- which does not make the loss of the distinction > correct, only epidemic). CLL is given to such wishy-washies from time to > time, as anyone in these kinds of discussion knows. We MUST protest that the wishywashiness derived from the flipflopping that pc did on the list every time it came up. %^) pc categorized things a certain way when he annotated the TLI cmavo list and I redesigned our cmavo based on his notes. Every time we tried to document the list thereafter, he changed his interpretation a little bit. The "significant number of people" we consulted on this was "1". %^) (I admit to the possibility that the design represented misunderstandings of those several consultations with one person %^) 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