Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:59:09 EDT

In a message dated 6/14/2001 6:30:41 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e >

Back to the beginning then. I would like to point out that I understood from 
the beginning what xod meant to say and my point was -- and still is -- that 
he failed to say it. None of the attitudinals involved are problematic in 
the sense of changing the truth value of the claim, which remains that 
translating Alice is evil. xod expresses strong repulsion for this 
situation, disbelief in it and wonder at it. He also gives as his support 
for the claim that I (or someone unspecified) think it. But he still asserts 
it. Nor would his repulsion, wonder or disbelief make sense if the claim were 
not true. None of the proposals so far offered have changed that, although 
some may appear to, but involve such contradictory elements as to cancel that 
appearance. 

I suspect that xod meant either to assert that he was disbelieving, repulsed, 
and wondering that *I* made this claim (which I did not and so his emotions 
were misplaced) or to express or assert that the words themselves willed him 
with ... Since he wrote his usual sloppy sentences, we do not yet know which 
it was, nor has the subsequent discussion shed any light on *that* matter 
(but a little light and a lot of darkness on attitudinals).