Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:25:20 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> That's great as far as explaining them in English. But {xu} is in
> selma'o UI and if it can be smoothly blended with the rest of the
> selma'o, all the better. If it is to be an exception, then other
> UIs can be exceptions too. In fact, many probably will be, as there
> are all kinds of things in that selma'o. That's not necessarily bad.
>
> I like better the approach pc is taking: first let's examine all
> attitudinals and see how they fit or not fit into groups. Starting
> from the premise that they should all follow the same rule no matter
> what, without even examining if it is workable for all of them, is
> what led us to the current confusion.

It would seem that the current state of affairs, with the attitudinals
divided up into two sets (one set with one function and the other set with
two functions) is the result of analysis like pc proposes. Analysis where
we try to predict what people will express, and prune away power we think
they won't need.

>
> >So I don't know what the answer to your question is. If it is an
> >attitudinal, then I admit the non-propositional sense of it would be a
> >bit of a stretch.
>
> Right. And what is the non-propositional sense of {ai}?
> "I'm feeling intentuous today"?

Isn't intent a feeling? The Japanese have a word: "gambaru".

I think the fact that it's difficult to translate into English is a Good
Thing! That's because my goal with Lojban is Sapir-Whorf, not
communication only using concepts I already am very familiar with. (If I
only wanted to be understood, I'd use English.)

This is why I personally prefer to have potentials that the armchair
prognosticators predict I don't need and can't use. I might be able to
express what is beyond my current, limited vocabulary.

The fact that this new approach treats all attitudinals as members of the
same class does not mean that they will all be used identically. Perhaps
.ai will not be used as much as .ui as an emotion. So what?

Lastly, I intend to learn all the attitudinals, and I prefer to learn them
as abstract concepts that I apply on the spot in a way that attempts to
make sense. The specialization between pure emotion and propositional
attitudes can be observed in usage, instead of prescribed. Some
attitudinals will tend to be used chiefly as one, some as the other, some
both, and other attitudinals will probably not be used much at all.

-----
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!