Subject: Re: hope [was: Re: [lojban] Re: attitudinals

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:16:35 -0400

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:59:48AM +0000, michael helsem wrote:
> >From: [email-masked]
> li'o
> >The one
> >exception so far noted is the case of {a'o}, which is generally taken to be 
> >a
> >projection of a hope for the fulfillment of the mentioned state of affairs
> >(whose occurrence is not yet settled in the mind of speaker).
> 
> useful summary.
> suppose we keep .A'O for the untranslatable-but-consistent-with-
> other-attitudinals usage, & use PACNA when we are thinking in
> English, "hope that..." ?

It would be consistent with other attitudinals if it did change the assertive
nature of the sentence, just as the rest do and as the Book implies they do.
If you want it to not be that way, put it in its own sentence.

If attitudinals at the beginning do not change the assertive nature, then the
whole 'possible-worlds' idea which our understanding of the 'subjunctive' in
Lojban depends on goes to hell.

If you must bring up .ui to challenge this, my stance is that .ui changes the
assertive nature to something which is equally assertive.
-- 
Rob Speer