From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jun 13 12:06:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 19:06:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 60539 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 19:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 19:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 19:03:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.2b.16cf629b (3985) for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2b.16cf629b.28591314@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:03:48 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] gismu for attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2b.16cf629b.28591314_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_2b.16cf629b.28591314_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2001 11:22:50 AM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > Here's what I think each VV attitudinal means at the beginning of a sentence. > I haven't checked this list carefully, but I want to put in a warning about this enterprise. So far as I can tell, even the revised attitudinal proposals do not turn bridi with attitudinals attached into asasertions about my attitudes, as these sentence fragments seem to do. It continues, even if the factive-fictive division comes to hold across the board, to be important to distinguish between expressing an attitude and claiming to have one. If the attitudinals in some position or other are claim makers, then I -- and I hope every other careful Lojbanist -- will oppose *that* plan. --part1_2b.16cf629b.28591314_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2001 11:22:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


Here's what I think each VV attitudinal means at the beginning of a sentence.

I haven't checked this list carefully, but I want to put in a warning about
this enterprise.  So far as I can tell, even the revised attitudinal
proposals do not turn bridi with attitudinals attached into asasertions about
my attitudes, as these sentence fragments seem to do.  It continues, even if
the factive-fictive division comes to hold across the board, to be important
to distinguish between expressing an attitude and claiming to have one.  If
the attitudinals in some position or other are claim makers, then I -- and I
hope every other careful Lojbanist -- will oppose *that* plan.   --part1_2b.16cf629b.28591314_boundary--