From richardt@flash.net Sun Jun 10 19:08:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 02:08:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 40839 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 02:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 02:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 02:08:00 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.104.217]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5B27tg119030; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:07:55 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout3-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B241758.495C21D3@flash.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:56:56 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Cowan Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd John Cowan wrote: > > 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. Yeah, I knew I was stretching it's meaning, but not too far IMO. I was reminded of the brochure because it seems to me that we actually are arguing about what the role of the attitudinal is in the sentence. What can it do? How far do it's effects reach? I thought to myself, "If context (in the listener's mind) can use my attitudinal to make my sentence either an assertion or a proposition at will, then there is certainly some doubt as to what role attitudinals are playing." I put it in the mail because it amused me, not because I thought it was a crushing argument. Richard