RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban]Bibletra...

[Jim Carter <jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> Yes, but... Consider "What big eyes you have!" -- It would generally
> be accepted that this has propositional content -- "You have big eyes"
> -- even though the utterance is not a claim. Xod, though, wants to
> go one step further and say that the propositional content is
> "I exclaim (that you have big eyes)". It's at that point that we
> diverge.

Well, yes and no.  Certainly the point of that utterance is not to make a
claim about style, or even a claim about eyes.  But if Little Red Riding
Hood said the utterance in a flat and glum tone, the stylistic markings (!)
would *falsely* represent that style.  If some literary critic decided to
deconstruct the story there could be endless wrangles over whether it was
properly an exclamation, or an ejaculation, or a this or a that.

So like I said, truth value isn't the point of the utterance or of its
<UI> decorations, but the constative nature of the decorations can pop up
without warning, and you have to have the flexibility to deal with it.
pc said that the "everything is everything" interpretation is considered
old-fashioned today.  I suspect the reason is that if you're going to argue
over what an utterance means, it's more productive to argue over its main
point -- and I'll agree with that.  But let's not deny the constative (and
performative) aspects of attitudinal indicators just because examples are
clearer if their main point is emphasized.

James F. Carter          Voice 310 825 2897    FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet;  6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA  90095-1555
Email: jimc@math.ucla.edu    http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)