From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Jun 13 09:09:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 16:09:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 30091 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 05:38:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 05:38:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.165) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 05:38:38 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5D5bDW19011 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:37:13 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15A3IS-0001Mg-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:34:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:34:27 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Message-ID: <20010613013427.A5225@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20010612170520.X14438@digitalkingdom.org> <20010612175324.F14438@digitalkingdom.org> <20010612221638.B4469@twcny.rr.com> <20010612202718.G14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010612202718.G14438@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:27:18PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I get the idea that if we follow the Book to the letter, we get the ambiguous > > mess we have now. I think that if the o* and u* attitudinals were assumed to > > have no significant effect on the assertive nature of a sentence, it would > > bring things into line nicely while only contradicting the Book in a part > > that's vague anyway. > > I don't want to use categories like that at all, if possible. Besides: > > .ui do klama > I'd be happy if 'do klama' was true. The problem is that you're translating the attitudinals to English sentences. How about translating them to Lojban sentences? .a'o do klama -> mi pacna lenu do klama .ui do klama -> mi gleki lenu do klama However, you're translating it to "mi gleki calenu do klama". So, if we think about the Lojban meaning of these attitudinals and not the English one, the suggestion you had at first works _and_ doesn't contradict usage. -- Rob Speer