From gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Mon Feb 04 10:27:54 2002
Return-Path: <gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch>
X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 4 Feb 2002 18:27:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 35043 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 18:27:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2002 18:27:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta11n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.211)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 18:27:51 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (213.3.33.29) by mta11n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.0.039)
  id 3C5DA0DC00041F57 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:27:44 +0100
Message-ID: <013901c1ada9$35b028a0$a02103d5@oemcomputer>
To: "jboste" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:23:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
From: "G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=81437350
X-Yahoo-Profile: gregvdyke


----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch>
To: "Invent Yourself" <xod@sixgirls.org>
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??)