From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Jun 14 12:31:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 19:31:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 62295 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 19:31:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 19:31:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 19:31:37 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic233.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.233]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5EJVZ616894 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010614152905.00dca460@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 15:36:50 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Attitudinals again (was: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:45 PM 06/13/2001 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > > Certainly it is bad to assume that {.ui ko'a klama} means the same as > > > > {mi gleki lenu ko'a klama}. > > > > > >Everybody's agreeing on this, but nobody has explained why to my > > >satisfaction. > > > > The first one asserts that ko'a goes. The second one asserts that > > you are happy about ko'a going. Those are two different assertions. > >ko'a goes, and that makes me happy Not the only interpretation, though the most likely given no pragmatic information. (It could also mean "ko'a goes, and I disapprove but I'm happy anyway (maybe because I know that ko'a wants to go)". >I am happy because ko'a goes > > > In the first one you are displaying your feeling of happiness > > about ko'a going. In the second one you are not necessarily > > displaying any feeling at all. > >You displayed it through the use of "gleki". No. He CLAIMED it - he might have done so in a monotone, and he might have falsely claimed it. Assertions can be true or false. Emotional displays simply ARE. > > They are clearly different assertions. I'm not sure why this is > > such a big deal though. As far as I can tell, both are appropriate > > in approximately the same circumstances. That does not mean > > they have the same meaning. > >A difference is only a difference if it makes a difference. I see there is >a difference in the character string. Is there a difference in meaning? There is a difference in pragmatics. If someone claims to be happy, and does not display happiness, I react with doubt. There is also a difference in truth-functionality that can affect things in a context. For example, if the following sentence started with .ijanai, all of a sudden there is no assertion at all, and the conditional depends on whether I am happy rather than whether ko'a is going. 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