From sentto-44114-16479-1034004736-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon Oct 07 09:03:37 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n33.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.101]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17yaM3-0000t9-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:03:35 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16479-1034004736-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.194] by n33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Oct 2002 15:32:16 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 7 Oct 2002 15:32:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 78530 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 15:32:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2002 15:32:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 15:32:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.171.1517cb9e (25711) for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <171.1517cb9e.2ad302f1@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:32:01 EDT Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_171.1517cb9e.2ad302f1_boundary" X-archive-position: 1968 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_171.1517cb9e.2ad302f1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/2002 7:07:18 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes, quoting pc quoting him: << > > This is the oldest screw-up in Lojban (and Loglan before it). People who > > can't tell UI from "I am ... that..." bridi are suffering from the > original > > malglico and clearly have not yet earned the right to play with the > language. > > They just need to be gently asked which they really mean (Do you care > how I > > feel or do you care that ...?) and reminded how to say the one they want. > > > This is a clear case of the parse (often) not giving the intended > meaning. > > And all the bad usage in the world will not change that. > > Ok, I read the above paragraph about 4 times, and I can't make heads > or tails of it. Clearly it is intended to be insulting, but you > wrote it so poorly I have no idea what you're even complaining > about, which just makes it look asinine. However, I'll give you > the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually *are* talking about > *something*, however incoherently. > > Would you like to try again? >> Sure. Sorry if I lived up to my reputation for opacity. It was not meant to be insulting, merely descriptive, with the presecriptive consequences of that, as per my printed view on mucking up Lojban as received (no deviations until it is clear that you can do it right and are deliberately fiddling: xorxes can do it, I can't). Since 1976 (at least -- I think I have seen earlier cases), students of Loglan/Lojban ahve mixed up attitudinals and predicates of attitude, {ui [bridi]} and {mi gleki le nu [bridi]} as a standard example. The source of this seems to be that English has no -- or very few -- attitudinals and fills the gap with expressions that look like claims about the speaker's attitude toward something: "I am happy that [sentence]," to stick with the same case. To see that this is not the claim it looks like, it is usually sufficient to say something like "No, you aren't" to someone who says it. If s/he is bemused by this response or takes it as a strange way of saying "It is not the case that [sentence]" -- that is, gives evidence relevant to [sentence] rather than to his/her state of mind -- then this was an attitudinal use of "I am happy that" in English, one correctly translated by {ui}. If, on the other hand, he gives a defense relevant to showing how he feels about [sentence] -- how it ties in with his goals, that [sentence] is the souce his grin, etc. -- then the "I am happy that" is descriptive and translates as {mi gleki le nu...}. No amount of (mis)usage is going to change this, since it is hardwired into the grammar ({ui} may disappear, as many good attitudinals seem to have done in English, but it will not become a claim maker. I suppose {mi gleki le nu} could eventually become as attitudinal, as it did in English, but only if UI fell into dissuetude. The rest is just the standard policy for dealing with the error. Ascertain that it was an error, that the user really meant to say the other thing, and then gently (two-by- fours are OK after a few recurrences, but dynamite is never appropriate) remind the misuser of the distinction and how to make it. --part1_171.1517cb9e.2ad302f1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/2002 7:07:18 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes, quoting pc quoting him:

<<
> This is the oldest screw-up in Lojban (and Loglan before it).  People who
> can't tell UI from "I am ... that..." bridi are suffering from the original
> malglico and clearly have not yet earned the right to play with the language.
>  They just need to be gently asked which they really mean (Do you care how I
> feel or do you care that ...?) and reminded how to say the one they want. 
> This is a clear case of the parse (often) not giving the intended meaning. 
> And all the bad usage in the world will not change that.

Ok, I read the above paragraph about 4 times, and I can't make heads
or tails of it.  Clearly it is intended to be insulting, but you
wrote it so poorly I have no idea what you're even complaining
about, which just makes it look asinine.  However, I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually *are* talking about
*something*, however incoherently.

Would you like to try again
?
>>
Sure.  Sorry if I lived up to my reputation for opacity.  It was not meant to be insulting, merely descriptive, with the presecriptive consequences of that, as per my printed view on mucking up Lojban as received (no deviations until it is clear that you can do it right and are deliberately fiddling: xorxes can do it, I can't).
Since 1976 (at least -- I think I have seen earlier cases), students of Loglan/Lojban ahve mixed up attitudinals and predicates of attitude, {ui [bridi]} and {mi gleki le nu [bridi]} as a standard example.  The source of this seems to be that English has no -- or very few -- attitudinals and fills the gap with expressions that look like claims about the speaker's attitude toward something: "I am happy that [sentence]," to stick with the same case.  To see that this is not the claim it looks like, it is usually sufficient to say something like "No, you aren't" to someone who says it.  If s/he is bemused by this response or takes it as a strange way of saying "It is not the case that [sentence]" -- that is, gives evidence relevant to [sentence] rather than to his/her state of mind -- then this was an attitudinal use of "I am happy that" in English, one correctly translated by {ui}.  If, on the other hand, he gives a defense relevant to showing how he feels about [sentence] -- how it ties in with his goals, that [sentence] is the souce his grin, etc. -- then the "I am happy that" is descriptive and translates as {mi gleki le nu...}.  No amount of (mis)usage is going to change this, since it is hardwired into the grammar ({ui} may disappear, as many good attitudinals seem to have done in English, but it will not become a claim maker.  I suppose {mi gleki le nu} could eventually become as attitudinal, as it did  in English, but only if UI fell into dissuetude.

The rest is just the standard policy for dealing with the error.  Ascertain that it was an error, that the user really meant to say the other thing, and then gently (two-by- fours are OK after a few recurrences, but dynamite is never appropriate) remind the misuser of the distinction and how to make it.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_171.1517cb9e.2ad302f1_boundary--