From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Jun 14 11:54:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 18:54:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 88791 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 18:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 18:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 18:54:41 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic233.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.233]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5EIse482754 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010614145416.00dc8c60@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:59:54 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) In-Reply-To: <20010613164226.O14438@digitalkingdom.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:42 PM 06/13/2001 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:39:51PM -0400, Craig wrote: > > Givent that there wasn't any misunderstood comment to start this thread to > > my knowledge, how's this proposal sound? > > > > 1. We will assume that attitudinals have the meaning suggested by actual > > usage. > > 2. We will use attitudinals so that people understand what we are saying. > > 3. We will shut the hell up about our fixes to attitudinal problems until > > there is a problem to post about. > >You don't think that the question of whether or not the speaker of > >.a'o mi klama > >is asserting that they actually will/have gone is a problem? No it is not a problem. It is a pragmatic question, one that needs a full context even to show that there is a problem. I would have been more likely to accept that there was a problem if someone used a'o mi caca'a klama and did not intend it to be assertive (of course he is actually in the process of going and if he is interrupted and does not reach the destination then the statement will be seen later as being false). Can you see that there is a lot of context that needs to be present to fully interpret attitudinal interaction with reality? That is what I mean by pragmatics. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org