Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 17:48:26 -0400

><a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e .i le'o
>.iaru'e ku'i mapti le do na'o selsku .i za'a do na'o gunta le mutce
>kamfinti pilno mu'u la maikl. .i do ba'o fanta dada'o poi nalseldjuno ku'o
>ca'o le nanca be li 30
>Aside from being unsure what empathetic opining is, I am glad to see that
>someone agrees that translating Alice is evil. I don''t wonder at your
>reluctance in admitting this nore even at your wonder and disbelief, but it
>is nice to have you along. [I know you don't mean that, but it is what you
>say.] I am not sure what aggressive weak agreement is either, but then I was
>unaware that I had a typical expression; I thought I was all over the place.

At 10:53 AM 06/05/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>In a message dated 6/5/2001 12:55:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
>[email-masked] writes:
>><You certainly aren't quoting me! And for the record, if anybody wants to
>>read what I wrote, please read the original Lojban; don't rely upon pc's
>>faulty translations, which are sometimes the opposite of what I said.
>>
>>For instance, pc claimed (and reiterated) that translating Alice was
>>"evil". I rather don't agree.>
>
>Well, I did not in fact claim that: I said I would probably have (given the
>choices between "foolish" and "evil" for two events) reversed xod's 
>choices.
>Happily ther were other choices and I made those. And xod does indeed
>*assert* that translating Alice is evil.

Now pc, >you< were (one of?) the earliest to note that attitudinals might 
change an apparent assertion into something else; I recall mention of 
possible worlds and the like. The following of the bridi with "ianai" 
clearly makes the statement NOT an assertion (or rather renders a valid 
translation as "Translating Alice is evil, NOT!"

> xod also *expresses* a number of
>emotional responses to that claim, some of them apparently at variance with
>the claim made -- though they might be merely shock at finding oneself
>making such a claim. I am still unsure what empathetic opining is --xod got
>so into my head that agreement resulted? The sentence in question is <
>.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e > in which the
>only assertion is < le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci >; the rest is emotive
>response. I suspect xod meant the assertion to be in quotes or some of the
>emotive expressions to be assertions to the effect that xod reesponded thus
>to my assertion that... But what is written is written, and I refuse to be
>blamed for taking people at their word.

I encourage xod to continue exploring attitudinals. No one will learn them 
if they are not used, and the are potentially one of the strongest features 
of the language.

I will remind people at this point that xod has uniquely committed to come 
to LogFest 2001 (less than 2 months away now) prepared to speak ONLY Lojban 
during that gathering. He cannot do so without exploring the use of the 
WHOLE language, and we will not be able to understand him unless we have 
made some efforts to practice at least trying to understand what he writes 
(I plead guilty to not even trying, unlike pc who sets a worthy example in 
trying to read what xod writes in Lojban and answering it, even if he reads 
something into what xod writes other than what xod intended).

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org