From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jun 14 16:59:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 23:59:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 52731 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 23:59:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 23:59:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 23:59:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.3c.d1809b2 (17384) for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3c.d1809b2.285aa9cd@aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:59:09 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3c.d1809b2.285aa9cd_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_3c.d1809b2.285aa9cd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/14/2001 6:30:41 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org 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). --part1_3c.d1809b2.285aa9cd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/14/2001 6:30:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org 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). --part1_3c.d1809b2.285aa9cd_boundary--