From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Jun 10 19:21:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 02:21:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 30833 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 02:21:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 02:21:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 02:21:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5B2LHV06196 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:21:17 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] The new approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la rab spir cusku di'e > > >Of course. No word could change the fact that true things continue to be > >true > >or that false things continue to be false. The speaker's percieved truth > >value > >is what's important, and this is what I'm talking about. > > The attitudinals don't change the speaker's perceived truth value > either, I would think. > > >For example, {a'o} changes the truth value from "I state that this is true" > >to > >"I hope that this is true". > > {a'o} makes that change, only I don't see how you can call that a change > in truth value. It doesn't matter, we agree on what {a'o} does, even > if we disagree about how to call it. Without .a'o the sentence is an assertion about reality. With .a'o, under the new proposal, the sentence is an assertion about the speaker's hopes. That is what he is calling a change in the truth value, I believe. ----- 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!