From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Jun 13 20:20:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 03:20:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 12625 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 03:20:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 03:20:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.120) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 03:20:48 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5E3JL821113 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:19:21 -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 23:19:21 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15ANcZ-0000Ym-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:16:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:16:35 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: hope [was: Re: [lojban] Re: attitudinals Message-ID: <20010613231635.A2134@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:59:48AM +0000, michael helsem wrote: > >From: pycyn@aol.com > 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