[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals)
At 04:54 PM 06/15/2001 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > > > > >.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e >
> > > > >
> > > > Give it up. You are wrong. The Book clearly shows that a'u is a
> > > > propositional attitude indicator. Page 302.
> > >
> > > You weren't using .a'u. You were using pe'idai. Much less obvious.
> >
> > Do you see "a'u" in the sentence above?
>
> I see .a'unaicai, which is glossed as 'extreme repulsion'. Repulsion as
> to an idea does not, as far as I am aware, imply that the idea is wrong.
That's correct. But the issue is: is a'u a propositional indicator like
e'o, or a pure emotional attitudinal like ui? pc is trying to convince me,
or others, that the a'u still maintained the assertion of the bridi,
resulting in that I mistakenly said that translating Alice was evil. But
the book, and my interpretations of the opinions of Cowan and Lojbab,
Since my opinion is at issue, I will state clearly that I don't agree with
xod on this. The book rather clearly says on page 302 that all of the
propositional attitudes can sometimes be emotive, and "a'u" I consider one
of the more emotive of them. Furthermore, I don't think that xod really
used it propositionally.
To interpret the sentence propositionally, I have to posit a world wherein
translating Alice is evil, and then say the speaker finds this world or
situation repugnant. Then, because pe'idai follows immediately and
attaches despite being written separately, it appears that xod is
empathizing BOTH the repugnance to the proposition, as well as the opinion
to pc. This doesn't seem likely. (If the a'unai had been attached to the
word fanva, then maybe it might convey pc's expressed attitude, but I'm not
sure.)
One problem is that the pe'i(dai) DOES make the bridi quite clearly
assertive about the real world and not a hypothetical one. The only
evidential that seems like it might not be assertive is the one of
postulation, since one can postulate an imaginary world or some fact about
the real world. If the sentence is an assertation by the use of pe'i then
it cannot be merely propositional. So xod used both propositional and
non-propositional members of UI in the sentence, and barring context,
Lojban bridi are assertions.
So xod was inconsistent about the propositionality of the sentence. And
indeed, I think it would have been impossible for him to convey both his
and his perception of pc's attitudes in the sentence and have it be both
clear and correct.
Now I don't think that xod was proposing a world where translating Alice
was evil, so we immediately need to move this out of the propositional
realm. There is no doubt that someone is asserting that in fact
translating Alice is evil, though the pe'idai then makes it clear that this
assertion is attributed to someone else, along with the repugnance to the
assertion. It >IS< clear that xod doesn't believe the evil part.
Now having said that I don't agree with xod, I have to still say that I
understood the sentence, because the confusion of attitudinals has no
plausible resolution except to assume he intended what he meant.
and
the understanding of all the readers besides pc all indicate that it was
completely proper usage of a'u.
I think the a'u was improper, but I also think xod was trying to do too
much with attitudinals to convey both his attitudes and his perceptions of
other's attitudes in the same sentence so that I am unsure what "proper"
would be except to use more than one sentence.
As for pe'idai, that might be incorrect or
controversial, but we might need another two weeks to sort that out. (My
usage is intentionally experimental!
I don't think that pe'idai is inherently wrong, but if you are empathizing,
stick to empathizing and don't try mixing modes.
I am constantly exploring as I use
Lojban. This seems to irritate a select few who prize computer-like
perfection above creativity and exploration and the resultant failures.)
I don't think anyone, including pc, is irritated by your
exploration. Indeed, he has clearly said that he approves of that
exploration. But the perils of exploration is that one can take a wrong
path. pc might have been undiplomatic about telling you he thought you
were wrong, but then he could legitimately have been irritated by your
failed empathy of his attitudes both towards the translation and towards
your Lojban.
None of this is a distraction from the disturbing fact that pc launched a
withering, uncalled-for attack on the translation of Alice.
His attack was indeed withering. As for "uncalled-for", I didn't know that
we had to wait for opinions to be "called for" on this group in order to
express them. he could have been more diplomatic, but I'll admit that I
have been comparably undiplomatic about the same thing at times - people do
seem to like to choose the most difficult things to translate rather than
the easier ones. This is probably because it is the difficult parts of
language are what attracts people to Lojban.
As for flamewars, my experience has certainly taught me that the best
response to a troll -- which pc is undoubtedly -- is a loud *plonk*.
I don't think that pc is a troll, given that the bulk of his writings are
both substantive and positive contributions to the list. As such, your
characterization of him as such is a far nastier flame than any he has
delivered towards you.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org