| In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:57:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes: Now pc, >you< were (one of?) the earliest to note that attitudinals might And the Book contains a nice separation between such world-creating attitudinals and the purely emotive ones that respond to claims: {a'u},and {u'e} and {ianai} in the sense incredulity all clearly belong to the latter set, though the Book at this point is inconsistent with itself, since it seems to imply that even {ui} has a truth value and then extends that to some of these others. If the statement is not an assertion, what is it? Is anything asserted in the passage in question? If nothing is asserted than what is the point of the (very strange) evidential, which should be a side (assertion, comment, warning label?) that the assertion is based on the cited evidence, but here there is no evidence that was available to the speaker to cite, someone else's assumed opinion is not a case of the speaker knowing his own mind. [Quite by the way, that whole passage at the beginning of 13.11 is in terrible shape, logically, historically, and semantic-pragmatically, but we'll work with what we've got.] <I encourage xod to continue exploring attitudinals. No one will learn them if they are not used, and they are potentially one of the strongest features of the language.> Well, I am not sure how strong they are, but they are certainly different and are largely unexplored territory. So, yes, explore away. But start by noticing the difference between {ui la djan. klama} and {mi gleki lenu la djan. klama}. <pc who sets a worthy example in trying to read what xod writes in Lojban and answering it, even if he reads something into what xod writes other than what xod intended> But not reading in, reading out what he said, whatever he intended. Not my fault he is an anti-Horton sometimes. |