From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sun Feb 03 14:42:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 3 Feb 2002 22:42:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 71988 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 22:42:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2002 22:42:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2002 22:42:23 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.91]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020203224220.VNMR9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:42:20 +0000 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:41:33 -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 Xod: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > 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. > > People sometimes say "Oh, fuck!" and "Ouch!" as utterances in discussions > to communicate their state of emotions. The fact that at other times, the > ingrained communicative habit triggers an ejaculation outside of a > discussion is caused by, and not parallel to, their original communicative > function. I think you have it backwards. If I normally pout when I'm upset, I can ostensively pout in order to communicate to you (I may or may not be dissembling) that I'm upset. The communication works because I know you aware of the causal connection "if upset then pout -- pouting is a symptom of being upset". I maintain that "ui" et al, along with "ouch" and "O fuck" are exactly like this. So which position is better: yours or mine and pc's. Mine, because it (a) follows devices that natlangs find useful, (b) preserves a useful distinction between "ui" and "mi gleki", and (c) provides a way of expressing certain emotions without making any truth-conditional assertions that describe my emotional state. Your position doesn't seem foolish, but it does seem the less profitable one. > Are you going to try to convince me that there are words that were created > and taught with the intent of private, internal use, and that are never > intended for interpersonal communication? Once you manage to do that, and > then prove that the Book teaches that UI are similarly not intended for > interpersonal communication, then I will agree with you. Good luck. > > > As for whether "ui" is a symbol, that depends which set of > > semiotic terminology we're using. > > Only if you intend to derail this discussion with a bizarre definition of > "symbol" which, as previous distortions, judiciously sketches its > conceptual boundary to exclude my case. If you insist upon destroying the > useful meaning of the term "symbol" with such antics, I'll migrate to > another word, because I'm not really discussing word definitions but > rather the ideas and relationships behind them. Fair enough, but do note that some semioticians make use of a distinction between, inter alia, "symbol" and "index" (as subtypes of sign", and part of our disagreement is that you take "ui" for a symbol and I take it for more of an index. > There are a sufficient number of people that will agree that an entity > with spoken and written incarnations and a socially agreed meaning is a > "symbol". I'm not trying to win an argument by terminological sleight of hand... > 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". > > Well, only a liar (or actor, etc) would say "mi gleki" if they weren't > actually le gleki. I dispute that this is correct, but even if it were there would not be a direct causal connection. There would be an indirect causal connection mediated by the rule "speak the truth". > 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". > > Well, you've agreed that UI has a truth value. I wish I had read this part > first before I wasted time responding to the rest. I'm glad you've come > around! I haven't agreed that UI has a truth value, but if you are happy with what I said then presumably all we disagree about is what counts as a truth value. Certainly "real" and "fake" are not to my mind the same as "true" and "false". > > > 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. > > Is it really? Did the idea come spontaneously forth from your childhood > habits? Or did you read about it in a book? Shall we now argue the > definition of "pre-arranged"? Selmaho UI was created, not discovered. I learn it from exposure to Lojbanistani culture. Even when not engaging in communication or other interaction with others, my behaviour is still culturally conditioned. --And.