An Agreement? (was: An approach to attitudinals

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> At 12:09 AM 06/15/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >la lojbab cusku di'e
> > >But plausibly it can mean "I am happy now" about a situation (bridi) that I
> > >am presently considering which is not a present reality, which
> > >pragmatically often means "I would be happy if".
> >
> >No, "I would be happy if" is very different from "I am happy
> >that it could be so". Only the second one can be handled with {ui}.
> >Would-be happiness has to be {a'o} or {au}.
>
> I am daydreaming about my ideal world when I say the first. At the time I
> make that sentence, it is true. Then I realize it is only in my mind, and
> add a sentence that indicates it is conditional.
>
> (Hey, I'm not saying that these unusual cases are common, merely that the
> rules of thumb are reflecting a pragmatic norm that simply doesn't always
> hold. .ui usually means that we are asserting the bridi, because we WOULD
> normally recognize and use .a'o or au for would-be happiness. I reject the
> impossibility of no other pragmatic case.)


(and from another mail:)

> No, because I don't want people to have to THINK (i.e. "reason") while
they
> are attitudinally emoting. They should express what they feel at the
time
> they feel it, and the few rules we have for attitudinal expression are
> really just conventions that attempt to describe the pragmatics that
> realistically will apply if someone just expresses things naturally.



I conclude that you would agree with a tradition or habit of tending to
put UI in front of the bridi when pragmatically meaning to discuss a
hypothetical, and putting it elsewhere when emoting while issuing an
assertion. Such a habit would likely sort things out in my head as I
speak!





-----
We do not like And if a cat
those Rs and Ds, needed a hat?
Who can't resist Free enterprise
more subsidies. is there for that!





From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Jun 15 04:18:12 2001
Return-Path: <xod@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 41604 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5FBIAm08573 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: An Agreement? (was: An approach to attitudinals
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010615054742.00d1e510@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0106150705270.8089-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> At 12:09 AM 06/15/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >la lojbab cusku di'e
> > >But plausibly it can mean "I am happy now" about a situation (bridi) that I
> > >am presently considering which is not a present reality, which
> > >pragmatically often means "I would be happy if".
> >
> >No, "I would be happy if" is very different from "I am happy
> >that it could be so". Only the second one can be handled with {ui}.
> >Would-be happiness has to be {a'o} or {au}.
>
> I am daydreaming about my ideal world when I say the first. At the time I
> make that sentence, it is true. Then I realize it is only in my mind, and
> add a sentence that indicates it is conditional.
>
> (Hey, I'm not saying that these unusual cases are common, merely that the
> rules of thumb are reflecting a pragmatic norm that simply doesn't always
> hold. .ui usually means that we are asserting the bridi, because we WOULD
> normally recognize and use .a'o or au for would-be happiness. I reject the
> impossibility of no other pragmatic case.)


(and from another mail:)

> No, because I don't want people to have to THINK (i.e. "reason") while
they
> are attitudinally emoting. They should express what they feel at the
time
> they feel it, and the few rules we have for attitudinal expression are
> really just conventions that attempt to describe the pragmatics that
> realistically will apply if someone just expresses things naturally.



I conclude that you would agree with a tradition or habit of tending to
put UI in front of the bridi when pragmatically meaning to discuss a
hypothetical, and putting it elsewhere when emoting while issuing an
assertion. Such a habit would likely sort things out in my head as I
speak!





-----
We do not like And if a cat
those Rs and Ds, needed a hat?
Who can't resist Free enterprise
more subsidies. is there for that!