Re: [lojban] Tentative summary on Attitudinals

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/1/2001 4:37:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:

You can hypothesize a "possible world" as the whole sentence, or in a
subclause
- the {da'i} should be able to apply to {poi} instead of the whole {.i},
changing the meaning of the sentence.

However, attitudinals in different locations don't change the meaning of the
sentence from what it would be if the attitudinal was at the beginning of
the
sentence, in the state of attitudinals right now.

Result: anything that creates possible worlds, so that counterfactual
statements can be discussed logically, cannot be a UI.

Let me see if I get you.  In "the man who would be king came in" the
"counterfactual" or however you describe it is in the restrictive relative
clause, but if we put {da'i} or some such there, it would leak out and make
the whole hypothetical "the man who is king would come in," or so?  I think
that is right under the present rules, though relative clauses could be
fairly easily accomodated out.  The general problem might remain -- and once
we start accomodating things out we could get carried away to the full set of
suggestions.  So, I am not sure whether this shows that some, at least, of
the non-assertive uses can't be UI or whether it shows that we have to set up
some distribution rules of the sort suggested.  Or maybe look for a different
approach altogether.