From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Jun 13 16:59:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 23:59:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 71179 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 23:57:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 23:57:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 23:57:33 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AE00623D010E; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:57:52 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:57:34 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" I'm sorry, I misquoted the date on this. We haven't been having this stupid argument for as long as I thought. But I still don't get what's wrong with this version (Which is actually just a clarification of the book) and has not been shown to be problematic. It works, here's an explanation of attitudinals that I think if we take the time to reread it HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH IT. So WHY THE **** ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT IT? -----Original Message----- From: Jorge Llambias [mailto:jjllambias@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:19 AM To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals It is clear that atitudinals are not used to make claims. If I say "ui" I am not claiming that I am happy, I am simply showing you that I am happy. A big smile might accomplish the same thing. They are not claims. But that in no way means that I can remove the attitudinals from a bridi and that what is left is something that I am asserting. Sometimes this is how it works, sometimes it isn't. For example, in {ui la djan pu klama le zarci} I am claiming that John went to the market, and I am expressing happiness about that fact. But in {a'o la djan pu klama le zarci} I am not claiming that John went to the market. I can't hope for something that I know is true, {a'o} requires that I don't know that the statement is true, and also that I don't know it to be false either. If the bridi is to be taken as a claim, it is not about the actual world but about the world as I want it to be, a world that has to be compatible with what I know of the real world. On the other hand, {mi pacna le nu la djan klama le zarci} is a claim about the real world. {au} is more permissive than {a'o}. Again the statement can't be known to be true, you can't wish for something you already have! But in this case it _can_ be known to be false, because you can wish things were different than what they in fact are: {au la djan pu klama le zarci} "I wish John had gone to the market". In this case it is suggested (if not actually claimed) that John did not go to the market, for if I didn't know whether or not he went I could have used {a'o} instead of {au}. To make the actual claim I would have to say {oi la djan na pu klama le zarci}. So, some attitudinals do not remove the assertiveness of the bridi which they adorn: ui, ua, ue, u'e, u'i, ia, ie, ii, oi, o'i, o'a are all in this category. Some attitudinals require that the speaker doesn't know the bridi to be true: a'o, au, ai, ei, e'o, e'u, e'e, e'a are all in this category. In these cases, the bridi is not a claim about the real world. It is rather a claim about the speaker's inernal world, and the speaker must necessarily not know that the claim be true of the real world. For some attitudinals, I am not quite sure about their meaning yet, so I can't tell which category they belong to. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.