Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:11:55 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

> Nope.  {ui [bridi]} is true or false depending on [bridi], and goes the same
> way.  If you are not, in fact, happy, you may be misleading but you haven't
> said anything false. 
> {mi gleki lenu [bridi]} is true or false depending upon your attitude (happy
> or not) about the event of [bridi].  Typically, it would also be false if
> that event did not occur, but this is deputable.  But certainly the mere fact
> that the event did occur would not make {mi gleki...} true.

It wouldn't be false if the event didn't occur because it uses "le".
I agree that the "pure emotion indicators" don't affect truth value...

This does *not* count as a real semantic difference.  If this is
all you have, I don't see how you are justifed in calling it the
"original malglico"

.
>>
I'm not sure what {le} has to do with it -- I take it that that is balanced by "the event"  in English: whatever it is that {le nu [bridi]} refers to, if that did not occur, some people would say taht was enough to make the whole flse.  Others would disagree and still otheres would say "It depends on context" (a totally normal Lojban situation, in short).
If the fact that they have different truth values in the same situation is not evidence for a semantic difference, what will count?!  Such a difference is possible only if there is a difference in meaning, which is what I take "semantic difference" to mean. [For the record, the cases are (clear) when [bridi] happens but the person's {ui} is insincere -- so that the {ui} case is true but the {mi gleki} false --and (disputable, though I go this way usually) [bridi] does not happen but speaker is happy about it anyhow (maybe mistakenly thinking it has happened) -- {ui} false, {mi gleki} true.]

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.