Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:52:45 -0400 (EDT)

Richard Todd scripsit:

> >From the brochure:
> "The person who reads or hears a Lojban sentence is 
> never in doubt as to what words it contains or
> *what roles they play* in the sentence."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (emphasis mine)

That is intended to refer to syntax.

> I agree the meaning would generally be obvious. What bothers me is that
> the listeners might take my sentence the wrong way. And when they do,
> I've got nothing to point to to say that they've misunderstood the
> sentence. They just drew their own inference from the context. 

Just so. There are many features of Lojban you must avoid if you
mean to be semantically unambiguous: unqualified names, empty or
zo'e places, tanru, attitudinals.

-- 
John Cowan [email-masked]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter