Re: xorxes' idea of UI, as interpreted (was Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI.)

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:19:35PM +0200, Daniel Brockman wrote:

>> You don't think xorxes's opinion (all emotional indicators are
>> vague as to whether the sentence is an assertion or a
>> hypothetical, although some are usually used with hypothetical
>> sentences due to the emotion most often occurring simultaneously
>> as someone compares alternate universes, and some are usually used
>> with assertions due to the emotion usually occurring as someone
>> experiences or thinks about a fact, and you can always force one
>> or the other using {da'i} or {ju'a}) is a serious one?

I find that totally convincing, including the mention of da'i and
ju'a.  As I said in Section 13.3 of the Red Book:

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. Attitudinals are the part of Lojban most distant from the
``logical language'' aspect.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.