From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jun 10 19:45:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 02:45:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 89373 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 02:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 02:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.203) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 02:45:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:45:00 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.59 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:45:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.59] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] The new approach to attitudinals Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:45:00 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2001 02:45:00.0927 (UTC) FILETIME=[828910F0:01C0F220] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >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. With a'o it is an expression of the speaker's hopes, not an assertion. An assertion would be {mi pacna le nu ...} >That is what he is calling a change in the truth value, I believe. I still don't see any truth value changing. All I see is that in one case the speaker knows what the truth is and in the other the speaker doesn't. I don't see that as a change in truth value, but we are not really disagreeing about the underlying matter, I think. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.