From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Jun 15 06:51:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 13:51:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 14553 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 13:51:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 13:51:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 13:51:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5FDpLh06733 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:51:21 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > i la xod cusku di'e > > >If .ui means "I am happy...", > > Only in the sense that {xu} means "I am asking a question", > or {pe'i} means "I am giving an opinion". Certainly on the latter. Is pe'i different from mi jinvi le du'u? > >that is a provable logical assertion about > >the reality of my emotions. > > They are not assertions. If you say {ui ko'a klama}, and I > say {na go'i}, I am not saying "No, you're not happy", I'm > saying "No, ko'a is not coming". If you say {mi gleki le nu > ko'a klama}, then my {na go'i} does mean "No, you're not > happy". All this proves is that go'i refers to the bridi, and not to the UI. I agree. But my issue is not that UI are not bridi, but that UI are not? assertions. ----- 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!