From pycyn@aol.com Sat Feb 02 12:36:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 2 Feb 2002 20:36:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 18493 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2002 20:36:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2002 20:36:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2002 20:36:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.97.22718a61 (25715) for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:36:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <97.22718a61.298da7d1@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:36:33 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] utterances; UI To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_97.22718a61.298da7d1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_97.22718a61.298da7d1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/2002 1:03:43 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > So a smoke signal can have a truth value, but a word that's both written > and spoken doesn't? > Yup. The smoke signal is code for some message -- some declarative sentence. As such it gets a truth value derivatively from the sentence it encodes (unless there is a whole smoke langauge as there is for drums and ASL signs, it which case it IS a sentence, not merely a code for one). Most words, however, don't have a truth value, which belong only to sentences (or propositions -- lets not get into that one). In sentences, some words contribute to the truth value of the whole by being functional parts of the description whose holding makes the sentence true; others remove the sentence from being a description of an event taken as holding and convert it into some other sort of sentence than an informative one (constative) and thus remove it from the area of truth values, some words in a sentence do not affect its truth value at all. UI tend very much to be in the last two categories, {ui} itself in the last -- truth-value irrelevant -- group. Smoke, btw, without a language or an encoding, does not have a truth value, even though seeing it is a good reason for claiming that there is fire at the point where the smoke is: it is a sign, though not a symbol nor a signal. --part1_97.22718a61.298da7d1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/2002 1:03:43 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:


So a smoke signal can have a truth value, but a word that's both written
and spoken doesn't?


Yup.  The smoke signal is code for some message -- some declarative sentence.  As such it gets a truth value derivatively from the sentence it encodes (unless there is a whole smoke langauge as there is for drums and ASL signs, it which case it IS a sentence, not merely a code for one).  Most words, however, don't have a truth value, which belong only to sentences (or propositions -- lets not get into that one). In sentences, some words contribute to the truth value of the whole by being functional parts of the description whose holding makes the sentence true; others remove the sentence from being a description of an event taken as holding and convert it into some other sort of sentence than an informative one (constative) and thus remove it from the area of truth values, some words in a sentence do not affect its truth value at all.  UI tend very much to be in the last two categories, {ui} itself in the last -- truth-value irrelevant -- group.
Smoke, btw, without a language or an encoding, does not have a truth value, even though seeing it is a good reason for claiming that there is fire at the point where the smoke is: it is a sign, though not a symbol nor a signal. --part1_97.22718a61.298da7d1_boundary--