From xod@thestonecutters.net Tue Oct 08 08:30:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 8 Oct 2002 15:30:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 7083 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2002 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17ywMp-00089Y-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:33:51 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ywMG-00089E-00; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:33:16 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ywMC-000895-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:33:12 -0700 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g98FTFr18676 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:29:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:29:15 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] ui and truth (was: Re: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism) In-Reply-To: <20021008151550.GA44523@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20021008112505.F18630-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1987 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:56:53AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/7/2002 8:06:01 PM Central Daylight Time, > > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > > << > > > Ok; I agree that there is a gramatical difference, but not that > > > there is a real semantic difference (except perhaps in which part > > > of the claim is more important (the fact you are happy, or whatever > > > the other claim is))... > > >> > > Nope. {ui [bridi]} is true or false depending on [bridi], and goes the same > > way. If you are not, in fact, happy, you may be misleading but you haven't > > said anything false. > > {mi gleki lenu [bridi]} is true or false depending upon your attitude (happy > > or not) about the event of [bridi]. Typically, it would also be false if > > that event did not occur, but this is deputable. But certainly the mere fact > > that the event did occur would not make {mi gleki...} true. > > It wouldn't be false if the event didn't occur because it uses "le". > I agree that the "pure emotion indicators" don't affect truth value... I'm not sure that pc restricted his claim to the pure emotional indicators. Also, a long argument concluded that, sometimes, the pure emotional indicators could affect truth, and that propositional attitude indicators don't always. And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that ...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning ``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points. " -- Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation? -- Howard Zinn