From cowan@ccil.org Tue Jun 05 18:02:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 6 Jun 2001 01:02:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 1235 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 01:02:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jun 2001 01:02:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2001 01:02:10 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 157RiF-0002qg-00; Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:02:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher In-Reply-To: from "pycyn@aol.com" at "Jun 5, 2001 06:25:18 pm" To: pycyn@aol.com Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > Excuse me? Where have I insisted that I am right except as laid out in the > Book? I am just reading things by the book: "Attitudinals make no claim: they > are expressions of attitude, not of facts or alleged facts. As a result, > attitudinals themselves have no truth value, nor do they directly affect the > truth value of a bridi they modify." (13.2 p. 298) So, what is asserted in a > sentence is not affected by the speaker's response to it. > Now, if someone wants to argue that that ain't so, regardless of what the > Book says, or if what the Book says is inconsistent with other points in > itself or the general program, I am perfectly happy to argue. But so far > this is not the case here. > Usage decides undecided cases; some things are decided -- in this case to > make a clear distinction between claims that arouse our emotions and claims > about our aroused emotions. Actually the Book waffles, and deliberately so. Some attitudinals are *primarily* pure emotion, some are *primarily* propositional, but it is written: The entire distinction between pure emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky [...]. [It] is mostly by way of explanation, and is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points. [p. 302] In particular, even "ui" can be seen as a propositional attitude, something like "It makes me happy that ..." -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter