From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jun 10 10:20:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 17:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 72836 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 17:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 17:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.17) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 17:20:17 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:20:17 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.228 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:20:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.228] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:20:16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2001 17:20:17.0267 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E4CDC30:01C0F1D1] From: "Jorge Llambias" la ritcrd di'e cusku >.ui ko'a snada >.a'o ko'a snada > >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. So, for example {xu} would almost always have to carry that additional suffix? >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. I don't think that attitudinals interact with the truth value or meaning of the proposition. They only interact with the assertive power of the utterance. In a given context, a proposition has a given truth value (maybe in some cases a fuzzy one, that's not the point here). Attitudinals don't touch that truth value. But the proposition can be used in different ways. If you say it bare of attitudinals, the default interpretation is that you are asserting it: {le nu cusku lu le truralju cu stace li'u cu baurni'i le nu xusra le du'u le truralju cu stace}, "saying {le truralju cu stace} linguistically-implies asserting that the president is honest". Saying {ui le truralju cu stace} does not affect the assertive force of the bare bridi, but {a'o}, {e'o} or {xu} do. With these, the proposition is no longer used to make an assertion. Its truth value is not affected, but now the speaker is not claiming to know what that truth value is. >Then, when someone misunderstands me, I can point to the >list and say, "Nope, attitudinal number 206 doesn't do that. Study >harder." Is that what you do when someone doesn't understand that a bridi marked with {xu} is not an assertion of the bridi? The effect of {a'o} is similar to the effect of {xu}. >It could get frustrating pretty fast if parties disagree about what their >attitudinals are doing: I certainly agree with that. I don't recall anyone ever using "a'o " in the sense of " gives me hope", but if people started doing that it would get pretty confusing. >ko'a: .au mi na speni do > >ko'e: .o'onaisai ba'e mi cliva .i mi birti > le du'u mi speni do What did ko'e understand? Apparently not the wish that ko'a tried to express (which would have been a good reason for ko'e to get angry). Did ko'e get angry just because (according to ko'e) ko'a asserted a false proposition? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.