[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai

I think we've done this one before as well.

Unless things have changed.  The chapter 13 sections 2 and 3 from the
CLL indicates (to me at least) that the attitudinals themselves are
grouped into two distinct sub-groups.  The "pure emotion indicators"
and the "propositional attitude indicators".

An excerpt from section 3:
"
As mentioned at the beginning of Section 2, attitudinals may be
divided into two groups, the pure emotion indicators explained in that
section, and a contrasting group which may be called the
``propositional attitude indicators''. These indicators establish an
internal, hypothetical world which the speaker is reacting to,
distinct from the world as it really is. Thus we may be expressing our
attitude towards ``what the world would be like if ...'', or more
directly stating our attitude towards making the potential world a
reality.

In general, the bridi paraphrases of pure emotions look (in English)
something like ``I'm going to the market, and I'm happy about it''.
The emotion is present with the subject of the primary claim, but is
logically independent of it. Propositional attitudes, though, look
more like ``I intend to go to the market'', where the main claim is
logically subordinate to the intention: I am not claiming that I am
actually going to the market, but merely that I intend to.
[snip]
In fact, the entire distinction between pure emotions and
propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can be seen as
a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that ...'', and
``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning ``I'm
awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion and
propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of
explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific
points. Attitudinals are the part of Lojban most distant from the
``logical language'' aspect.
"

From this it is pretty clear that at the very least, the author of
this chapter intended that {.ai mi klama lo zarci} should mean "I
intend to go to the store".

mu'o mi'e la .cribe.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:48 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I confess I have trouble remembering what are called discursives in
> Logjamese, but the name sounds like the right sort of thing for 'xu'.  I am
> not sure just what your point is here.  I don't necessarily think that these
> various things have different grammars (syntax) but that they perform
> different grammatical functions.  Sorry if that was not clear.  'xu'
> changes the nature of the sentence in which it occurs; the attitudinals do
> not affect the sentence at all. They are pure frills grammatically.  If the
> diascursives are things like "I hope that" (in the non-descriptive way "Oh,
> would that"), then they are are somewhere in between: they do express
> something and they also alter the grammar of the sentence (making it
> non-assertive, in particular).
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 7:18:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai
>
> Then what about the discursives? They're not about emotion, but how should
> their grammar differ from the actual {cnima'o} like {ui}?
>
> mu'o mi'e latros
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> True, but that makes it like several other stress devices ( including
>> attitudinals to be sure), but that doesn't make it an attitudinal.  Again,
>> asking a question is not expressing an attitude.
>> Sent from my iPad
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 14:25, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> {xu} is less syntactic than it seems, because you may want to emphasize
>> that your question pertains to different parts of the sentence; you may want
>> to say, for a contrived example, "Are you going to the store to buy meat?",
>> which implicitly asserts that you, the speaker, do know that the listener is
>> going to the store, but do not know what they are going to the store to buy,
>> and have a guess as to what it is. In Lojban you would then say {[pau] do
>> klama le zarci fi'o se vecnu lo rectu xu} or something similar.
>>
>> mu'o mi'e latros
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, that makes sense, sorta.  I wouldn't have take 'xu' as an
>>> attitudinal, for one thing -- it is too clearly syntactic for that (cf.
>>> 'ma').  For another, that usage is hardly what the comments on this thread
>>> suggest, which are more along the lines I suggest  -- with exceptions, I
>>> admit.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:52, ".arpis." <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to figure all the various discussions under this label out.
>>>>  Let me summarize what I understand and then set me straight.
>>>> 1) Since 'xu dai' makes little sense literally, I take it it is an idiom
>>>> of some sort, apparently meaning "What is the appropriate UI to use here,
>>>> with reference to someone else?", I.e., "What would contextually defined so
>>>> and so have used at this point in this sentence --suitably edited?"      So,
>>>> 'mi xu dai klama?' asks you what someone (contextually you, again, but I
>>>> supposed there is a way to assign it otherwise) would have said in the frame
>>>> 'do ... klama.' (or maybe, in this case, 'la pycyn ... klama').  The correct
>>>> answer is presumably something like 'zo ui' ( with an appropriate choice of
>>>> UI).  The answer which seems to be given is 'ui', which clearly wrong in two
>>>> ways: it is now an expression of the respondent's response to being asked
>>>> the question (or something like that) and not someone's response to my
>>>> coming and b) if it were to be that it would be deceptive since it would not
>>>> actually express that emotion (in the usual case) but rather simulate it
>>>> after it had gone away.
>>>
>>> I disagree with this interpretation of {xu dai}. Just like {ui dai}
>>> ascribes happiness to the listener, {xu dai} ascribes questioning to the
>>> listener. This is little use except as a rhetorical device, but AFAICT it's
>>> the only consistent interpretation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "lojban" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "lojban" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.