From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 12 17:19:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 00:19:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 52931 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 23:54:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 23:54:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 23:54:42 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 159xzd-0004mJ-00 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:54:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:54:41 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010612165441.W14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 08:50:24PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > > la ritcrd cusku di'e > > > > >The attitudinal placement idea solves the same problem IMO opinion, > > >which is why I think it would be a fine way to go as well. > > > > Maybe it is, I haven't had time yet to look at how it would work > > for more than the couple of examples presented. Would it apply > > to {xu} as well, for example? > > > > In usage, when people want to ask about the truth of a bridi, they put xu > in front. When they want to ask about the validity of a certain component > of the bridi, they put xu right after it. This sounds quite like the new > proposal to me. Except that do klama le zarci xu under the proposed rule would still be an assertion of do klama le zarci -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/