From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 31 18:22:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Feb 2002 02:22:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 16276 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 02:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2002 02:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 02:22:03 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.82]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020201022201.ZQTB7000.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:22:01 +0000 To: Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban]Bibletra... Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:21:22 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin jimc: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/31/2002 10:05:32 AM CST, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > > How do you intend to prove to me that ".ui" lacks a truth value? > > > > This looks like a foundational belief: if you don't see it, I don't > suppose I > > can prove it to you... > > I had a very similar wrangle some years ago. Pardon me while I botch > attributions to philosophers, or why don't I just give a generic credit to > unnamed wise people for essentially all of this... > > A performative utterance makes things happen by being said. Example: "Let > there be light", "I now pronounce you man and wife". A constative > utterance conveys to the listener some information known to the speaker. > This part isn't in the Canon, but let's call it an indicative utterance, > which displays the speaker's emotional or internal state. > > While we tend to analyse these categories in isolation, in fact every > utterance shares in all three aspects. Example: a performative utterance > also lets the listener know that this is the way it's going to be from now > on, whereas a constative ("purely" informational) utterance has the > performative effect of depositing information on the listeners that they're > expected to remember. > > As for the indicative utterances, in animal behavior you see a lot of > these, like threat displays or sexual solicitation or group cohesiveness > calls, and humans have a lot more variety. But clearly if you do your > spoken (or facial) grin ".ui", it also has a constative function to inform > the listener how you feel. And it also has a performative function in that > often part of your motivation in doing the display is to induce the > listener to join in your feeling, acting through a hardwired emotional > channel. > > Thus the designated purpose of selma'o may be for attitude indicators, > but a constative side effect, with a truth value, should not be rejected. 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. --And.