Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:52:53 EDT

In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:11:55 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> > 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...
> 
> This does *not* count as a real semantic difference. If this is
> all you have, I don't see how you are justifed in calling it the
> "original malglico".
>>
I'm not sure what {le} has to do with it -- I take it that that is balanced 
by "the event" in English: whatever it is that {le nu [bridi]} refers to, if 
that did not occur, some people would say taht was enough to make the whole 
flse. Others would disagree and still otheres would say "It depends on 
context" (a totally normal Lojban situation, in short).
If the fact that they have different truth values in the same situation is 
not evidence for a semantic difference, what will count?! Such a difference 
is possible only if there is a difference in meaning, which is what I take 
"semantic difference" to mean. [For the record, the cases are (clear) when 
[bridi] happens but the person's {ui} is insincere -- so that the {ui} case 
is true but the {mi gleki} false --and (disputable, though I go this way 
usually) [bridi] does not happen but speaker is happy about it anyhow (maybe 
mistakenly thinking it has happened) -- {ui} false, {mi gleki} true.]