[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher



In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:24:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


<It would be best, IMO, if you sent these sorts of things to the list as
a whole.  In future I will redirect my responses to you back to the
list.>


Score another for aol: its curious way of dealing with replies.  Isuppose
there is a way to reset this, but it usually sends replies to things received
from the list to the list, then occasionally -- as this -- sends them to the
original sender.  So far it has not (that I can remember) sent a private
communication to the list.




<On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:27:21PM -0400, Pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> Relevantly to the matter under discussion, xod has a standing claim --
> by deeds, he may be too modest to assert it -- to be in an upper
> echelon of Lojbanists, below the top four or five perhaps, but quite
> high up, yet he regularly makes these kinds of simple errors, often
> falls into incredibly complex construction for simple situations, and
> not infrequently insists that he -- not the Book or someone above him
> in the hierarchy -- is right.

Umm, but you are insisting _exactly_ the same thing right now.  And
rather more arrogantly than he has ever done, that I've seen.

What happened to usage carrying the day?>
Excuse me?  Where have I insisted that I am right except as laid out in the
Book? I am just reading things by the book: "Attitudinals make no claim: they
are expressions of attitude, not of facts or alleged facts.  As a result,
attitudinals themselves have no truth value, nor do they directly affect the
truth value of a bridi they modify." (13.2 p. 298)  So, what is asserted in a
sentence is not affected by the speaker's response to it.
Now, if someone wants to argue that that ain't so, regardless of what the
Book says, or if what the Book says is inconsistent with other points in
itself or the general program, I am perfectly happy to argue.  Butso far
this is not the case here.
Usage decides undecided cases; some things are decided -- in this case to
make a clear distinction between claims that arouse our emotions and claims
about our aroused emotions.