From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Feb 02 14:21:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 2 Feb 2002 22:21:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 91316 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.123]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020202222129.HEFW8848.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 22:21:29 +0000 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 22:20:26 -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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xod: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > Xod: > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > Xod: > > > > > > How do you intend to prove to me that ".ui" lacks a truth value? > > > > Maybe someone will come up with further arguments, but I offer this: > > the reasoning that would give ui a truth value would also give > > smiles and frowns truth values, and could be further pursued to > > give smoke a truth value (smoke is true iff there is fire; from > > the presence of smoke one can deduce the presence of fire). It leads > > to a reductio ad absurdum, whereby the valid and useful notion of > > propositionality is destroyed. > > ".ui" is an utterance; a symbol intended to exchange meaning. We disagree about this. Not all words are used with the intention of exchanging meaning. Questions, statements and commands are so used, but when the computer crashes & I exclaim "O fuck!" I do not intend to exchange meaning. Likewise for "ouch", etc. As for whether "ui" is a symbol, that depends which set of semiotic terminology we're using. But there is a fundamental difference between "ui" and "mi gleki". With "ui" there is, normally, a causal connection between being happy and saying "ui", and this is not the case with "mi gleki". Of course, a speaker can dissemble and say "ui" when not actually happy, but likewise one can carefully carve a footprint in the ground using a spatula to falsely create the impression that someone has trodden there. A 'footprint' not made by treading is a fake footprint, and a "ui" said when not happy is a fake "ui". > Is smoke? If > we're arranged that smoke has a certain meaning, and the signal is sent > but the condition to which it maps is not met, the smoke is a lie. Okay, but I deny that "ui" is a prearranged signal for me to use to communicate to you that I'm happy. Rather, "ui" is a conventional part of my behaviour; it's what I say when I'm happy. --And.