Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Richard Todd scripsit:

> >From the brochure:
> "The person who reads or hears a Lojban sentence is 
> never in doubt as to what words it contains or
> *what roles they play* in the sentence."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (emphasis mine)

That is intended to refer to syntax.

> I agree the meaning would generally be obvious.  What bothers me is that
> the listeners might take my sentence the wrong way.  And when they do,
> I've got nothing to point to to say that they've misunderstood the
> sentence.  They just drew their own inference from the context.  

Just so.  There are many features of Lojban you must avoid if you
mean to be semantically unambiguous: unqualified names, empty or
zo'e places, tanru, attitudinals.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter