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

From: "G. Dyke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:23:59 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Dyke" <[email-masked]>
To: "Invent Yourself" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re:
[lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

<And and Xod exchange various proposals, one of them thinks UI have truth
values, the other doesn't ; I can't figure out what their various arguments
have to do with it>

> 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.
>

Maybe this has something to do with someone saying {mi gleki} being a {lo
gleki} while someone who says {ui} is only a {le gleki} ? :-D

Let me see if I can agree with one of you, and then maybe you'll tell me who
that is...

if I say {mi gleki}then this is true jo I am a {lo gleki}

if I say {ui} there is no way of knowing whether this is true or false (In
the same way that a forced smile is still a smile), but I could still be
saying ui in good or bad faith.

if I say {ui mi gleki} this means "I am happy, I'm happy about being happy"
(the ui giving us the 2nd part of the sentence). whether the ui is "forced"
or not, {mi gleki} still stands.

if I say {mi no'u la lojbab cu gleki}, {no'u la lojbab} does have a truth
value (IE is not a UI) and because it is false, we can only say that the
whole proposition is false.

I think I'm with And, but I'm not sure...

mu'omi'e greg

(I'm getting sick of sending messages to the sender only... can I do
something to outlook to sort this out??)