From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 10 18:15:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 01:15:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 7778 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 01:15:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 01:15:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 01:15:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.fc.79644cf (4256) for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:14:58 EDT Subject: Re: New Approach to Attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fc.79644cf.28557592_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_fc.79644cf.28557592_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/10/2001 5:46:12 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 xod@sixgirls.org writes: > 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 >=20 This is the foundation of the original discussion -- thtat some attitudinal= s=20 affect truth value and some do not. =A0That way of putting it turned out to= =20 mean that some presupposed (in the technical sense: the sentence was at lea= st=20 pragmatically defective if the presupposition was not met) that the bridi w= as=20 true and, indeed, in practice the whole sentence asserted it, while other d= id=20 not presuppose this and were directed toward its becoming true or towards i= ts=20 truth in some idealized world. =A0I could not well skip over that, but this= was=20 befoe the new pattern -- which has not yet emerged to the point where I can= =20 see what it is based one and whether it has any connection with this older= =20 one. >=20 > 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= =20 >=20 Emotion presumably attaches not to bridi at all but to the situations the=20 bridi describe. And within that situation they may focus on one aspect rath= er=20 than another and thus be expressed by vocable attached to words for that=20 aspect. =A0But they may also be unfocused, attaching to the whole situation= and=20 so best expressed attached to the whole bridi. I expect that we will all be using attitudinals in ways that violate the bo= ok=20 (indeed, any consistent use will violate some part of chapter 13), but I=20 can't recommend the system being touted until I understand what it says=20 better, and I fear that may amount to saying "until I see how it fits into= =20 familiar frameworks," like the one I presented or, some general discussion = of=20 particular cases of emotion or precation or whatever. --part1_fc.79644cf.28557592_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/10/2001 5:46:12 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
xod@sixgirls.org writes:



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 listene= r
that the sentence is true, others that it is false. Still, the actual
claim of the sentence is never made.




This is the foundation of the original discussion -- thtat some attitud= inals=20
affect truth value and some do not. =A0That way of putting it turned ou= t to=20
mean that some presupposed (in the technical sense: the sentence was at= least=20
pragmatically defective if the presupposition was not met) that the bri= di was=20
true and, indeed, in practice the whole sentence asserted it, while oth= er did=20
not presuppose this and were directed toward its becoming true or towar= ds its=20
truth in some idealized world. =A0I could not well skip over that, but = this was=20
befoe the new pattern -- which has not yet emerged to the point where I= can=20
see what it is based one and whether it has any connection with this ol= der=20
one.




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 argumen= t=20



Emotion presumably attaches not to bridi at all but to the situations t= he=20
bridi describe. And within that situation they may focus on one aspect = rather=20
than another and thus be expressed by vocable attached to words for tha= t=20
aspect. =A0But they may also be unfocused, attaching to the whole situa= tion and=20
so best expressed attached to the whole bridi.

<This new approach is so beautiful and simple that I think I shall a= dopt
it, regardless that it violates the Book in some cases.>

I expect that we will all be using attitudinals in ways that violate th= e book=20
(indeed, any consistent use will violate some part of chapter 13), but = I=20
can't recommend the system being touted until I understand what it says= =20
better, and I fear that may amount to saying "until I see how it fits i= nto=20
familiar frameworks," like the one I presented or, some general discuss= ion of=20
particular cases of emotion or precation or whatever.
--part1_fc.79644cf.28557592_boundary--