Subject: Re: [lojban] ui and truth (was: Re: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:52:58 EDT

In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:32:21 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> 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.
>>
Well, I was talking lierally only about {ui} and {mi gleki}. Similar lines 
can be taken on a fuzzy list of other items ("fuzzy" only because there are a 
few tht really seem to be "context decides" cases). 
I don't recll a case of a "pure emotion" item (assuming these ae the 
non-fuzzy cases on the emotion side -- {ui}, for example) affecting truth 
values. The propositional attitudes don't always sounds like the fuzzy 
cases. And, of course, some of the critters in this heap affect truth values 
simply by moving the whole into directional -- or other non-assertive -- 
illocutionary acts ({e'u} and {e'o} for example). And som I have no idea 
what they do or mean ({e'i} for example).

<<
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."
>>
>From the historical view, this was a cop-out, brought about by the fact that 
there were cases which seemed (as noted) not always to go one way -- and a 
significant number of people who were still in the state of malglico 
confusion on the issue even in the clear cases (there seem always to be some 
-- which does not make the loss of the distinction correct, only epidemic). 
CLL is given to such wishy-washies from time to time, as anyone in these 
kinds of discussion knows.