From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Jun 15 06:15:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 13:15:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 83547 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 13:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 13:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 13:15:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5FDFqR20776 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:15:52 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 Pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/15/2001 2:29:59 AM Central Daylight Time, > xod@sixgirls.org 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. What do you mean, last ditch? The paragraph of text clearly agrees with me. I will concede defeat once you are able to convince Cowan and Lojbab of this point. Otherwise, you are simply trying to annoy me. Furthermore, Lojbab clearly stated that the PRAGMATICS of the situation determine the assertiveness of the UI. You and everyone reading knew exactly what the context was. Yet you alone actively chose to interpret it in the most ridiculous way possible. I suggest you wait for other responses before you respond to Lojban text, so you can better figure out the context and meaning from the more advanced readers. Further, of course, you can't be repulsed by what ain't there > to be repulsive. I can be repulsed by an idea, by a suggestion, by a hypothetical. You know this already so WHY are you arguing it? Also, you sent me a personal copy of this, and you sent one to the list. However, I happen to be a list subscriber, so I got two copies. Please, pick one target and use it. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!