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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:57:24 EDT

In a message dated 6/15/2001 2:29:59 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Give it up. You are wrong. The Book clearly shows that a'u is a
> propositional attitude indicator. Page 302.
> 

Not too bad as a last ditch defense, but it doesn't work.  A glance at the 
cases on that page of the book will show that not all -- and especially not 
{a'u} -- of what are called there "propositional attitude indicators" are 
non-assertive.  Further, of course, you can't be repulsed by what ain't there 
to be repulsive.

<If .ui means "I am happy...", that is a provable logical assertion about
the reality of my emotions. There are situations where you will call me a
liar if I say .ui. Sales one, blatant denial another, politics a third.>

Remember that it is a presupposition of this discussion that English "I am 
happy that..." is ambiguous and the ambiguity is exactly the one being 
glossed over in your remark.  Can you demonstrate that the ambiguity -- 
apparently well-documented -- does not exist?  
A similar problem arises with "liar," which may be used for any verbal 
deception, not merely those which involved deliberately uttering a statement 
known by the utterer to be false with the intention to deceive.

<I conclude that you would agree with a tradition or habit of tending to
put UI in front of the bridi when pragmatically meaning to discuss a
hypothetical, and putting it elsewhere when emoting while issuing an
assertion. Such a habit would likely sort things out in my head as I
speak!>

I would have taken Lojbab's remark to have tended pretty much in the opposite 
direction, i.e., as putting emotive responses to situations first and 
reasoned discussion later, but he will speak for himself on this matter. 
 None of this positional convention (other than as reaction to specific 
aspects of a situation) makes much sense to me yet.

(apologies to xod)