From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 05 16:39:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 23:39:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 21412 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 23:39:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 23:39:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 23:39:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.4a.16bc64d9 (3981) for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4a.16bc64d9.284ec7b6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:39:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4a.16bc64d9.284ec7b6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_4a.16bc64d9.284ec7b6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:57:56 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 lojbab@lojban.org writes: > Now pc, >you< were (one of?) the earliest to note that attitudinals might= =20 > change an apparent assertion into something else; I recall mention of=20 > possible worlds and the like. The following of the bridi with "ianai"=20 > clearly makes the statement NOT an assertion (or rather renders a valid=20 > translation as "Translating Alice is evil, NOT!" >=20 And the Book contains a nice separation between such world-creating=20 attitudinals and the purely emotive ones that respond to claims: {a'u}, and= =20 {u'e} and {ianai} in the sense incredulity all clearly belong to the latter= =20 set, though the Book at this point is inconsistent with itself, since it=20 seems to imply that even {ui} has a truth value and then extends that to so= me=20 of these others.=20=20 If the statement is not an assertion, what is it? Is anything asserted in= =20 the passage in question? If nothing is asserted than what is the point of= =20 the (very strange) evidential, which should be a side (assertion, comment,= =20 warning label?) that the assertion is based on the cited evidence, but here= =20 there is no evidence that was available to the speaker to cite, someone=20 else's assumed opinion is not a case of the speaker knowing his own mind.=20 [Quite by the way, that whole passage at the beginning of 13.11 is in=20 terrible shape, logically, historically, and semantic-pragmatically, but=20 we'll work with what we've got.] Well, I am not sure how strong they are, but they are certainly different a= nd=20 are largely unexplored territory. So, yes, explore away. But start by=20 noticing the difference between {ui la djan. klama} and {mi gleki lenu la=20 djan. klama}. But not reading in, reading out what he said, whatever he intended. Not my= =20 fault he is an anti-Horton sometimes. --part1_4a.16bc64d9.284ec7b6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/5/2001 4:57:56 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
lojbab@lojban.org writes:



Now pc, >you< were = (one of?) the earliest to note that attitudinals might=20
change an apparent assertion into something else; I recall mention of=20
possible worlds and the like.  The following of the bridi with "ia= nai"=20
clearly makes the statement NOT an assertion (or rather renders a valid= =20
translation as "Translating Alice is evil, NOT!"




And the Book contains a nice separation between such world-creating=20
attitudinals and the purely emotive ones that respond to claims: {a'u},= and=20
{u'e} and {ianai} in the sense incredulity all clearly belong to the la= tter=20
set, though the Book at this point is inconsistent with itself, since i= t=20
seems to imply that even {ui} has a truth value and then extends that t= o some=20
of these others.  
If the statement is not an assertion, what is it?  Is anything ass= erted in=20
the passage in question?  If nothing is asserted than what is the = point of=20
the (very strange) evidential, which should be a side (assertion, comme= nt,=20
warning label?) that the assertion is based on the cited evidence, but = here=20
there is no evidence that was available to the speaker to cite, someone= =20
else's assumed opinion is not a case of the speaker knowing his own min= d.=20
[Quite by the way, that whole passage at the beginning of 13.11 is in=20
terrible shape, logically, historically, and semantic-pragmatically, bu= t=20
we'll work with what we've got.]

<I encourage xod to continue exploring attitudinals.=A0 No one will = learn them=20
if they are not used, and they are potentially one of the strongest fea= tures=20
of the language.>
Well, I am not sure how strong they are, but they are certainly differe= nt and=20
are largely unexplored territory.  So, yes, explore away.  Bu= t start by=20
noticing the difference between {ui la djan. klama} and {mi gleki lenu = la=20
djan. klama}.

<pc who sets a worthy example in=20
trying to read what xod writes in Lojban and answering it, even if he r= eads=20
something into what xod writes other than what xod intended>
But not reading in, reading out what he said, whatever he intended. &nb= sp;Not my=20
fault he is an anti-Horton sometimes.

--part1_4a.16bc64d9.284ec7b6_boundary--