Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:09:01 -0400

Actually, what I meant was that the sentence is not asserted if the
attitudinal is attached to the sumti. Except that in E I actually meant if
it is one of those. But I think my plan still needs work, I'm hoping now
instead for something so simple we all wish we had thought of it before to
come along.

Of course, we could use the gismu for the attitudinals to some degree: if we
want to say 'I hope that you come' we say 'mi pacna lenu do klama' but if we
want to say 'I am hopeful; you come' we say 'a'o do klama' so that a bridi
with an attitudinal ALWAYS asserts the bridi, if we want to not assert it we
do that with gismu. That's my new proposal, and it's a lot simpler than the
other one. It still isn't perfect - I'm sure .ai would have a meaning, but
since none of us know what it would be we'd stop using it.

-----Original Message-----
From: sentto-44114-7939-992459050-ragnarok=[email-masked]
[mailto:sentto-44114-7939-992459050-ragnarok=[email-masked]]O
n Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

In a message dated 6/13/2001 12:39:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email-masked] writes:

E. An attitudinal attached to a sumti does not assert the sentence to be
true IF the attitudinal is not:

Attitudinals DO NOT ASSERT anything, so cannot be true or false. This
"rule"
does not make sense.

<F. An attitudinal attached to the selbri implies that the bridi is true but
doesn't actually assert it.>
Since attitudinals don't assert anyhting, they don't strictly imply anything
either (maybe only a terminological problem?)

And so on. This seem essentially to do away with attitudinals as such and
replace them with only assertions about my mental states.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe, send mail to [email-masked]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.