From rob@twcny.rr.com Sun Jun 10 13:14:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 20:14:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 85708 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 20:14:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 20:14:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout1.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.146) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 20:14:06 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.74]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5AKCKf18346 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:12:20 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 159BWa-0001qD-00 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:09:28 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:09:28 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The new approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010610160928.B6975@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 03:54:43PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > 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. Okay, then we can combine the reverse of my first proposal with my second proposal as such: * Attitudinals attached to a word in the sentence express feeling associated with that word. * Attitudinals on their own express a simple feeling. * Attitudinals attached to the beginning of the sentence modify the truth value of the sentence. > >.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? Neither. It simply expresses a feeling. > .i le merja'a cu stace .a'o > The US President is honest, and I have hope that is associated with his > honesty. So now this works. -- Rob Speer