From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Jun 10 15:45:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 22:45:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 81843 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 22:45:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 22:45:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 22:45:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5AMjXh05274 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:45:33 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: an approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <111.cadcca.2855431c@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself I don't see the need for "Presupposing the attached bridi is true" for those points A and B. The attitudinal that is attached to .i can always refer to the idea of the sentence, without asserting that the sentence is true (or false!) Some attitudinals will suggest to a reasonable listener that the sentence is true, others that it is false. Still, the actual claim of the sentence is never made. It could be argued that an emotion isn't really felt about a bridi, but about one part of the bridi; that's the word you attach the attitudinal to under this new approach. But I won't participate in any such argument. This new approach is so beautiful and simple that I think I shall adopt it, regardless that it violates the Book in some cases. On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > While I am not sure that the effect of attitudinals on truth values is the > most interesting question about them nor the best way to put the question > that is being asked under that rubric, it is the center of the present > discussion. Permit me to try out a schema on this topic, classifying > attitudinals as > I Presupposing the attached bridi is true > A. responding the claimed situation and its immediate, obvious, > "inevitable" > effects (pure emotions) > B. responding to the possibilities it opens (I take it this is > Lojbab's hope) > II Not presupposing the attached bridi is true (maybe separated into no > presupposition and presupposing false, but the next moves seem about > the > same -- though may have different names > Response if it were true (hope-fear) > Evaluation (should) > Commitment to its being true (wish - intend ) > Involvement of others (suggestion - power based range of > petitions) > > I'm not sure about the structure of this last bit, but I think this is > approximately correct. > > Comments? > ----- 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!