From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Apr 22 11:40:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 18:40:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 36681 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 18:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 18:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.136) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 18:40:44 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:40:44 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:40:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.27] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] conditionals in Lojban Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:40:44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2001 18:40:44.0728 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD733380:01C0CB5B] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >For as long as I have been >involved with Loglan/Lojban, people have regularly used UI for assertions >and >frequently assertions for UI, to the great detriment of clear thinking and >clear writing. I don't see why using assertions as a way to express an attitude would be a problem. Any action, including asserting something, can be a form of expressing. (BTW, Lojban does not even have a clear gismu for "x1 expresses attitude x2", maybe {jarco}?) mi jarco le ka ckire kei ta'i le nu mi cinba ko'a I showed my gratitude by giving her a kiss. mi jarco le ka ckire kei ta'i le nu cusku zo ki'e I showed my gratiude by saying "thanks!". mi jarco le ka ckire kei ta'i le nu xusra le du'u mi ckire I showed my gratitude by asserting that I am grateful. ({ki'e} is a vocative, not a UI, but I assume it is more expressive than assertive.) So what is the problem of using assertions as a way to show attitudes? As for the converse, it may be true that we sometimes use some attitudinals to make assertions. There seem to be two resons for this. On the one hand, some attitudinals are not so useful to express attitudes. I can understand what a bare {oi} means, or a bare {ui}, or a bare {u'i}, and those are always used attitudinally, but when would you express an attitude of obligation, for example? What does a bare {ei} indicate? Or a bare {ai}? On the other hand, there is no corresponding gismu to do the job. {bilga} has a much more restricted field of application than {ei}, and I can't get any meaning out of {ei do klama le zarci} other than "you should go to the market". {ei} to me means something like "in an ideal world, this happens". >1' ko'a pu bilga le nu zukte Is that "he had to do it" or "he should have done it"? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.