Message-ID: <20040303232153.14528.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:21:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Translation of folk tale
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <200403031230.i23CUHQ26689@mailgate5.cinetic.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 1254


la daniel cusku di'e

> There were those (like me) who thought that attitudinals should not be
> able to modify the meaning of a sentence, and there were others who
> thought that some attitudinals didn't and some others (like e.g. a'o and
> e'o) most certainly did.

The way CLL puts it is to say that some attitudinals 
(CLL calls them "pure emotion indicators") show an attitude
towards someone or something or some action or state of
affairs in the world, whereas other attitudinals ("propositional
attitude indicators") show an attitude towards a hypothetical 
world being decribed.

One objection I have to CLL's point of view is that it
classifies many attitudinals which I would consider in the 
pure emotion indicators category as propositional attitudes.
The way I see it, the only propositional attitudes should
be the e-series (e'a, e'e, e'i, e'o, e'u and ei), the 
"volitionals" (au, a'o and ai) and the "evaluators" (ia,
ie and i'a). 

CLL also says that the distinction is shaky and that some
(all?) attitudinals can be used in both senses. I think 
that would lead to too much ambiguity. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes
 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com