RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>> > Xod:
>> >
>> > I have argued that ".ui" has a truth value. It is "true" when the
speaker
>> > is actually happy. All utterances have truth value, even "ouch!".
>> > *******************************************
>> >
>> > Your contention is incorrect. The difference between "ui" and "mi
gleki"
>> > is precisely that only the latter has a truth value.
>>
>> How do you intend to prove to me that ".ui" lacks a truth value?

>Maybe someone will come up with further arguments, but I offer this:

vi'o. I propose this: if '.ui' had a truth value, then it would be
indistinguishable from 'mi gleki' - and thus there would have been no need
to create it, as we could use 'mi gleki' instead. The problem, I think,
comes from seeing '.ui' as an utterance just because it is audible. You can
hear a sigh, but it is not an utterance. '.ui' is like that.

                             --la kreig.daniyl.

     '.i do cu vanci le ba panje xusra
     .i denci gunma le se gidva'

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme:  0x5C3A1E74