Re: [lojban] Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapi...

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/16/2001 7:41:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > i ti'e le nu se menli lo kucli cu romei lei sarcu be
> > le nu pagbu le nunkelci
>
>Ahah! Someone else hs decided to test my reading ability.  So today I just
>go
>with what is meant, not with what is said.

Not fair! What did I say that I did not mean?

(My use of masses in purportedly settish places is intentional,
if that's the objection.).

Sorry, just preparing for attacks.  I am used to your attitude toward sets
and at least here agree with it.   My only worry is whether being a part of
the event of being a player is quite the same as taking part in the game -- I
might be some other part of that event than the person: I might be the toy,
for example.  I have no ideas about abetter way to say it (except, of course,
just {le nu kelci}) but the idiom seems mildly malglico.