From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Jun 14 12:05:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 19:05:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 16697 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 19:05:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 19:05:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailman2.cais.net) (205.252.14.62) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 19:05:39 -0000 Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by mailman2.cais.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f5EIU2M17635 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic233.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.233]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5EISkg21644 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010614142730.00d1caf0@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 14:34:00 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:33 PM 06/13/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: >la kreig cusku di'e > >Why do we need a'o? isn't it under any of these proposals just a redundancy > >that could be a non-assertive .ui or other attitudinal and therefore a > >cultural bias from English, which keeps hope and would-be-pleasure > >separate? > >All the proposals that have {ui} able to mean "would-be-happiness" >are missing an important point about attitudinals. Attitudinals are >for the expression of the immediate, present attitude. {ui} is for >"I am happy now", never for "I would be happy if". But plausibly it can mean "I am happy now" about a situation (bridi) that I am presently considering which is not a present reality, which pragmatically often means "I would be happy if". >But the bridi together with an attitudinal may or may not be >an assertion, depending on the attitudinal, and it may depend on the pragmatics. >and yes, it is a part >of the meaning of the attitudinal whether or not it effaces the >assertiveness of the bare bridi. But in any case, it is the >bridi, never the attitudinal that is asserted! Agreed. >I am finding this discussion extremely useful, by the way. >I don't think we ever discussed attitudinals in such detail, >and it really does help a lot that we do. If you are finding it useful, I guess it is useful, as your usage often sets trends for others. Your comments above are closer to my thinking than post others who have posted, which seems to be a rare situation. I will revel in it %^). 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