Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 19:36:36 -0500

>> 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!

If you feel this way, then you at least imply that a footprint has a truth
value!

>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".

However, since 'true' and 'real' are interchangeable in some dialects of
English, as are 'fake' and 'false', speakers of these dialects whorfishly
tend not to distinguish. But now that you mention it, there is a real
difference - the footprint isn't real (it isn't actually a footprint), but
it isn't false (it expresses nothing, true or false).

>> 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.

But you did learn it from a book - it just happens that it was the holy
book of Lojbanistanianism.

--la kreig.daniyl.

'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74