Subject: The new approach to attitudinals

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:54:43 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> Before this discussion continues, I'd like to know what was wrong with my
> suggestion. I'll reiterate:
>
> * Attitudinals attached to a word in the sentence affect the truth value of
> that sentence
> * Attitudinals attached to the beginning of the sentence express a feeling and
> do not affect the truth value

doh! Looks like I posted but understood the above in reverse. I think it
makes more sense in the reverse. Truth value is a property of an entire
sentence, therefore affecting truth value (a'o = I hope that, but I'm not
asserting that) should be performed on ".i". If you have a feeling
associated with a certain word in that sentence, then stick the cmavo at
the word that makes you feel something. Stick it to the selbri if the
relationship makes you feel it.

It's also more fair to put such a truth-value altering operation up front,
so the listener hears the rest of the sentence with the proper context,
instead of having their assumptions jolted part way through.

> However, if that doesn't work, there is also this possibility:
>
> * Attitudinals always affect the truth value of the sentence.
>
> This is nice and consistent - and it _doesn't_ stop you from simply expressing
> an emotion! Just put attitudinals in a separate sentence.

.i a'o le merja'a cu stace
I hope the US President is honest. (And I'm not asserting that he is, OR
that he isn't!)

>.i a'o .i le merja'a cu stace
> I have hope. The US President is honest.

The problem with this is, does this floating .i .a'o refer to the sentence
before it, or ahead of it?

.i le merja'a cu stace .a'o
The US President is honest, and I have hope that is associated with his
honesty.

-----
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!