From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Jun 08 15:44:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 8 Jun 2001 22:44:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 47821 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2001 22:44:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2001 22:44:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Jun 2001 22:44:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f58MikI03004 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:44:45 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: dai (was: rabbity sand-laugher In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010608150339.00da27b0@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 11:47 AM 06/08/2001 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > An interesting -- and, it now appears, permissible -- point of view. Well, > > > almost. If its truth depends upon my point of view and so on, then he > > can't > > > attack the claim, as the book says, since it is selfly true. On the other > > > hand, if the evidential function as intended (in Native American languages > > > and Laadan) then he himself has asserted it and on weak evidence indeed > > (his > > > idea of someone else's opinion). The only way to make tyhe sentence > > > pragmatically sound is to look at one interpretation for one part -- the > > > statement is made and I object to it -- and another interpretation for the > > > other part -- someone else made the statement so don't blame me. This is > > > equivocation at best, and stupidity at worst. Or the other way round -- I > > > never am clear whether it is worse to call someone an idiot or a cheat. > > > Actually, I don't think either applies -- to xod. The book turns out > > to be > > > so screwed up on this issue -- which I remember as being pretty well > > cleared > > > up several times over the past years and certainly is in the logical > > > literature -- that he can't really be blamed for not getting it right. The > > > present set-up doesn't allow anyone to get it right, for each choice > > made is > > > wrong on some place in the chapter. > > > >doi ro .i pe'i le si'o zo dai mapti le seltavla selcinmo cu traji le > >kamselpilno .iseni'ibo lu do jinvi li'u smuni lu pe'idai > > If I understand you (always a big "if" since I don't do enough Lojban > reading), this is precisely what pycyn was complaining about that I thought > was NOT applicable to the discussion. Lojban attitudinals, as expressions, > NEVER "mean" a bridi, which is a claim. "pe'idai" is NOT a claim that the > other person opines something (which is what "do jinvi" means; rather it > says that the speaker intuits/empathizes that the other person seems to be > expressing the emotion marked with dai. Having used dai on an evidential, > we have to treat that evidential as an emotional expression (the > evidentials can be used attitudinally, so this makes sense) that the > speaker is picking up. > > The closest bridi equivalent to "dai" is thus in my opinion > do cinmo leka [jinvi, in this case] kei > > but even this is inexact because I can empathize an emotion in someone even > if they are not actually expressing that emotion. > I'm not sure I see a noticeable difference between do cinmo le ka badri and do badri. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!