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

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:15:52 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

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!