From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 15 14:35:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 21:35:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 53203 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 21:35:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 21:35:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 21:35:30 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.15.15d95300 (4248) for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <15.15d95300.285bd997@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:35:19 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] The "system" of attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15.15d95300.285bd997_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_15.15d95300.285bd997_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/15/2001 3:11:38 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > Please clarify - why is a'o still considered inadequate? Because people want > to > use it in two ways? > > At the beginning of a sentence, a'o is defined by the Book to be a > propositional attitude indicator. > In its own sentence, a'o hopes for something unspecified and so can be used > to > express a simple feeling of hope. > > What's the problem? > Well, the "at the beginning of a sentence" part is not in the Book; there it is propositional attitude indicator wherever it occurs. And, the Book is less than pelucid on what a propositional attitude indicator does: the examples given differ on almost all the crucial features. The Book makes it relatively clear that {a'o mi klama le zarci} (and {mi a'o klama le zarci} and {mi klama a'o le zarci} and {mi klama le zarci a'o}) expresses a hope that I go to the store (with slightly different emphases in the various cases, answering to different possibilities in context, we assume). It does not assert that I go to the store; indeed, it presupposes that I do not yet know whether I go to the store. At least some Lojbanist have used this sentence or at least some of the variants to both assert that I do go to the store and to express a hope for some unspecified event possibly consequent upon that trip -- or even just a conswquent feeling of hopefulness, without a discernible object. Whether or not this latter reading is legitmate now, it clearly represents a real situation and one which should, therefore, have a Lojban expression. It does not under the present rules. It has not yet been clearly dealt with by the reform suggestions. That is the problem. --part1_15.15d95300.285bd997_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/15/2001 3:11:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:

Please clarify - why is a'o still considered inadequate? Because people want
to
use it in two ways?

At the beginning of a sentence, a'o is defined by the Book to be a
propositional attitude indicator.
In its own sentence, a'o hopes for something unspecified and so can be used
to
express a simple feeling of hope.

What's the problem?

Well, the "at the beginning of a sentence" part is not in the Book; there it
is propositional attitude indicator wherever it occurs. And, the Book is
less than pelucid on what a propositional attitude indicator does: the
examples given differ on almost all the crucial features.
The Book makes it relatively clear that {a'o mi klama le zarci} (and {mi a'o
klama le zarci} and {mi klama a'o le zarci} and {mi klama le zarci a'o})
expresses a hope that I go to the store (with slightly different emphases in
the various cases, answering to different possibilities in context, we
assume). It does not assert that I go to the store; indeed, it presupposes
that I do not yet know whether I go to the store.
At least some Lojbanist have used this sentence or at least some of the
variants to both assert that I do go to the store and to express a hope for
some unspecified event possibly consequent upon that trip -- or even just a
conswquent feeling of hopefulness, without a discernible object.
Whether or not this latter reading is legitmate now, it clearly represents a
real situation and one which should, therefore, have a Lojban expression. It
does not under the present rules. It has not yet been clearly dealt with by
the reform suggestions. That is the problem. --part1_15.15d95300.285bd997_boundary--