From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jun 06 05:41:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 6 Jun 2001 12:41:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 42738 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 12:41:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jun 2001 12:41:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2001 12:41:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.68.fb4d652 (4420) for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 08:41:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <68.fb4d652.284f7f0a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 08:41:46 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_68.fb4d652.284f7f0a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_68.fb4d652.284f7f0a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:11:24 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 lojbab@lojban.org writes: > I think, but am not checking at present, that the Book in fact does NOT=20 > separate attitudinals into two classes, because you and I could not do so= =20 > and stick to said classification over time. Rather the world-creating=20 > nature of an attitudinal is scalar. bridi, regardless of the attitudinal= s=20 > attached thereto, have a truth value, but the meaningfulness of that trut= h=20 > value is at question given a more world-creating attitudinal. >=20 Well, the book does separate them and then says that the separation is fuzz= y=20 (=3D scalar?). I thought that we finally figured out that we meant differe= nt=20 things when we talked of world-creation and that we sorted the confusion ou= t.=20 But I see that the Book goes along (not too surprisingly) with what I=20 remember as your view, namely that truth values need not be connected with= =20 the common world but may relate to the internal world of the speaker and th= e=20 variation therefore is dependent on how close touch tht world has with=20 "reality." As I recall, my line was that world-creating (I'm not sure that= =20 was the terminolgoy back then, but it is a good phrase) involved seeking to= =20 bring about or at least envision a change in reality. Thus, for example,=20 permission, obligation, request, sugggestion, hope and desire were=20 world-creating, happiness and surprise were not. Perhaps the general notio= n=20 was of foreward looking as opposed to present or past oriented -- but I don= 't=20 think that was quite the whole story. I will try to dig up some more. If we went by the rules, xod's {ianai} would strictly modify only {palci}; = is=20 it modifies yhe whole bridi then that bridi is asserted on the evidence of= =20 someone else's opinion or else what is asserted is that it is someone else'= s=20 opinion, in which case disbelief is an inappropriate reaction, since it 1)= =20 pretty clearly (to the speaker) *is* someone else's opinion and 2) such=20 opinions are "indisputable" (one of the worst pieces in that particularly b= ad=20 section). You can't have it both ways: choose one interpretation for half= =20 the point and the other for the other. (Well, apparently you can, since you= =20 just did, but it ain't proper behavior in any language and particularly in = a=20 "logical" one). I think that was what xod was trying to say too and I think he missed it. = He=20 wanted to say "pc opines that translating Alice is evil![repulsion,=20 amazement] but I don't believe it is;" what he said was roughly "I am=20 repulsed and amazed and incredulous that translating Alice is evil, as pc=20 opines." The latter, but not the former, entails that translating Alice is= =20 evil.=20 It appears that what is wanted is, as you say in the next (or previous), a= =20 three-way distinction: a reference to emotion and event that hinges truth=20 fnctionally only on the event (what I take the present emotionals to be), = =20 one that hinges on the attitude so long as it is focused on the event,=20 whether or not it occurs, and one that somehow takes both into account. IF= =20 the emotionals are of the first sort, we can do the others easily, if the=20 emotionals are already of one of the other sorts, then we cannot recover th= at=20 character at all from the remaining types.=20=20 OK, {mi ca gleki lenu...}. I am not sure what the three are, unless as=20 above, nor which two are usually ambiguous in Lojban (and why they should=20 be). You add an fourth possibility, "John's coming makes me happy," which= =20 looks like a simple causal statement, a factor not mentioned in earlier=20 discussions but implicit, I suppose, in the emotionals being responses to=20 situations being described. It can be fit perfectly easily -- if emotional= s=20 do not affect truth value. I only spoke of Loglan up to 1984, after that God knows what happened when= =20 JCB ran totally unchecked. I agree there was little use, but misuse was=20 severely chastised. have again fallen for the lowest common denominator. I don't think so.=A0 I think we have so many possibilities that have yet to= =20 be explored with the attitudinals, and no one will discover there are=20 problems until they have to deal with misunderstandings like this one.=A0 T= he=20 common denominator will be raised when more people have explored the=20 alternatives.> Or we will all be pulled down to the bottom of the scale as misuse becomes= =20 enshrined as usage and we end up speaking English with funny words (and the= =20 English of the bottom tail of the curve at that). --part1_68.fb4d652.284f7f0a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:11:24 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
lojbab@lojban.org writes:


I think, but am not check= ing at present, that the Book in fact does NOT=20
separate attitudinals into two classes, because you and I could not do = so=20
and stick to said classification over time.  Rather the world-crea= ting=20
nature of an attitudinal is scalar.  bridi, regardless of the atti= tudinals=20
attached thereto, have a truth value, but the meaningfulness of that tr= uth=20
value is at question given a more world-creating attitudinal.


Well, the book does separate them and then says that the separation is = fuzzy=20
(=3D scalar?).  I thought that we finally figured out that we mean= t different=20
things when we talked of world-creation and that we sorted the confusio= n out.=20
 But I see that the Book goes along (not too surprisingly) with wh= at I=20
remember as your view, namely that truth values need not be connected w= ith=20
the common world but may relate to the internal world of the speaker an= d the=20
variation therefore is dependent on how close touch tht world has with= =20
"reality."  As I recall, my line was that world-creating (I'm not = sure that=20
was the terminolgoy back then, but it is a good phrase) involved seekin= g to=20
bring about or at least envision a change in reality.  Thus, for e= xample,=20
permission, obligation, request, sugggestion, hope and desire were=20
world-creating, happiness and surprise were not.  Perhaps the gene= ral notion=20
was of foreward looking as opposed to present or past oriented -- but I= don't=20
think that was quite the whole story.  I will try to dig up some m= ore.

<In the case of ianai, attitudinally I do not see much difference be= tween=20
"incredulity" and what we express in English "NOT!", which I guess is=20
"denial". Though we would tend to use the latter to actually make the=20
opposite claim (which might better be conveyed using "naku" at the end= =20
rather than "ianai").>
If we went by the rules, xod's {ianai} would strictly modify only {palc= i}; is=20
it modifies yhe whole bridi then that bridi is asserted on the evidence= of=20
someone else's opinion or else what is asserted is that it is someone e= lse's=20
opinion, in which case disbelief is an inappropriate reaction, since it= 1)=20
pretty clearly (to the speaker) *is* someone else's opinion and 2) such= =20
opinions are "indisputable" (one of the worst pieces in that particular= ly bad=20
section).  You can't have it both ways: choose one interpretation = for half=20
the point and the other for the other. (Well, apparently you can, since= you=20
just did, but it ain't proper behavior in any language and particularly= in a=20
"logical" one).

<I think that xod was trying to say that his empathy picked up that = bridi as=20
being your opinion.=A0 I would therefore say that any evidential with d= ai is=20
going to make the bridi NOT an assertion on the part of the speaker, bu= t=20
rather something perceived as being an assertion on the part of someone= =20
else (which in my mind makes the whole sentence more or less=20
attitudinal).=A0 In that case, attitudinals NOT labelled with dai are t= he=20
speaker's attitudes>

I think that was what xod was trying to say too and I think he missed i= t.  He=20
wanted to say "pc opines that translating Alice is evil![repulsion,=20
amazement] but I don't believe it is;"  what he said was roughly "= I am=20
repulsed and amazed and incredulous that translating Alice is evil, as = pc=20
opines."  The latter, but not the former, entails that translating= Alice is=20
evil.=20
It appears that what is wanted is, as you say in the next (or previous= ), a=20
three-way distinction: a reference to emotion and event that hinges tru= th=20
fnctionally only on the event (what I take the present emotionals to be= ),  
one that hinges on the attitude so long as it is focused on the event,= =20
whether or not it occurs, and one that somehow takes both into account.=  IF=20
the emotionals are of the first sort, we can do the others easily, if t= he=20
emotionals are already of one of the other sorts, then we cannot recove= r that=20
character at all from the remaining types.  

<But I think that there remains a THREE WAY distinction, with two of= the=20
three being usually semantically ambiguous in Lojban (I think some of t= he=20
discursives actually disambiguate between world-creation and propositio= nal=20
expression - certainly the non-dai observatives are propositional and=20
especially the observative of assertion).

I don't think that "ui" "It makes me happy that" is quite the same as "= mi=20
gleki lenu ...".=A0 The latter is tenseless (and hence could be other t= han a=20
present emotion, whereas "ui" always is taken at the point of expressio= n),=20
and is truth conditional with regards to the happiness and not the thin= g=20
one is happy about.>

OK, {mi ca gleki lenu...}.  I am not sure what the three are, unle= ss as=20
above, nor which two are usually ambiguous in Lojban (and why they shou= ld=20
be).  You add an fourth possibility, "John's coming makes me happy= ," which=20
looks like a simple causal statement, a factor not mentioned in earlier= =20
discussions but implicit, I suppose, in the emotionals being responses = to=20
situations being described.  It can be fit perfectly easily -- if = emotionals=20
do not affect truth value.

<I don't think it is.=A0 There isn't enough attitudinal usage in TLI= Loglan to=20
know how "ui" really works.>

I only spoke of Loglan up to 1984, after that God knows what happened w= hen=20
JCB ran totally unchecked.  I agree there was little use, but misu= se was=20
severely chastised.

<I think "waffle" is overgenerous and I suggest that we
>have again fallen for the lowest common denominator.

I don't think so.=A0 I think we have so many possibilities that have ye= t to=20
be explored with the attitudinals, and no one will discover there are=20
problems until they have to deal with misunderstandings like this one.= =A0 The=20
common denominator will be raised when more people have explored the=20
alternatives.>

Or we will all be pulled down to the bottom of the scale as misuse beco= mes=20
enshrined as usage and we end up speaking English with funny words (and= the=20
English of the bottom tail of the curve at that).





--part1_68.fb4d652.284f7f0a_boundary--