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

From: Richard Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:08:30 -0500

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >(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).
> 
> If he believes that he is actually going, he shouldn't say that he
> hopes that he is actually going. That's very confusing.

Only if we refuse to accept some format which lets us know for sure
whether the sentence is still asserted or not. On the other hand, if we
do make such an adjustment, the worst that can happen is that you _know_
that he's going and you still have trouble figuring out what the exact
relationship between the emotion and the assertion is. 

Add a string of several more attitudinals to the sentence. Confusing,
conflicting ones, even (I know I've personally simultaneously hoped for
something and dreaded it). Then it's even harder to claim you
understand the sentence completely, but you will still know for sure
whether the sentence asserts something or not. 

Since emotions are so personal, you could make a case that it's even
likely that the audience doesn't quite get it right (unless it's a
cliche'd version of {ui} = 'it makes me happy that' which robs
attitudinals of their potential IMO and makes them shorthand for longer
sentences). 

Keep in mind that most of us are not trying to tie down the meaning of
the attitudinals (quite the opposite, in fact); we're trying to define
their relationship to the rest of the sentence in a way that both opens
up possibilities and is more clear.

All this arguing is really addicting, I admit, but does anything ever
actually get resolved in this forum? Is the procedure basically to type
and type until one side's fingers get too weary to continue? And even
in that case, does one side 'win'?

Richard