From richardt@flash.net Sun Jun 10 07:01:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 14:01:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 49906 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 14:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 14:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 14:01:44 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.101.193]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5AE1hg142350 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:01:43 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout3-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B236D22.6262CE24@flash.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:50:42 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd John Cowan wrote: > > Richard Todd scripsit: > > > What do you think? This gives us the ability to say exactly what we mean. Lojban has cmavo-laden shades of everything else, and it's very precise that way. There must be a few combinations of three > > letters left... :) > > Not many. But anyway, if you want to say exactly what you mean, use a bridi. > Attitudinals are for expressing how you feel, not for saying what you mean. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that: .ui ko'a snada .a'o ko'a snada both mean the same thing, but tell you different ways that I feel about it. If {a'o} altered the truth of sentence two, I would be using it to say what I meant, and not just how I feel. Assuming that's what you're saying I agree with you completely. However, others have already made the claim that sentence 2 does change the meaning of the sentence (and thus they _do_ use attitudinals to say what they mean, at least in their view). I was suggesting adding a suffix as a way of keeping both meanings, such that we could express both without the listener either: 1) having to guess 2) having to memorize which attitudinals are interacting and which are not. Barring that, I'd be happiest if there were a list of which attitudinals do and do not interact with the (truth value/meaning) of sentence. Then, when someone misunderstands me, I can point to the list and say, "Nope, attitudinal number 206 doesn't do that. Study harder." It could get frustrating pretty fast if parties disagree about what their attitudinals are doing: ko'a: .a'o mi cliva le spita ko'e: .oiro'e do na cliva ko'a: .o'ocu'i mi cusku zo .a'o .i mi djuno le du'u mi na ca cliva .iku'i lenu mi bazi ka'e cadzu klama le mi'o zdani cu cumki .i.a'o mi cliva ko'e: .o'onai ko na tavla mi fo la lojban ko'a: .au mi na speni do ko'e: .o'onaisai ba'e mi cliva .i mi birti le du'u mi speni do Richard Todd