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 18:15:01 EDT

In a message dated 6/15/2001 4:11:07 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> That's correct. But the issue is: is a'u a propositional indicator like
> e'o, or a pure emotional attitudinal like ui? pc is trying to convince me,
> or others, that the a'u still maintained the assertion of the bridi,
> resulting in that I mistakenly said that translating Alice was evil. But
> the book, and my interpretations of the opinions of Cowan and Lojbab, and
> the understanding of all the readers besides pc all indicate that it was
> 

You still can't have it both ways. If Robin CA's point is correct, then, as 
I understand it, at least {a'unaicai} requires the assertion of the sentence 
(though I admit that that may not be what he meant, since he did not phrase 
it that way). The rest is False Dilemma (can I use you in the Fallacies 
section of my textbook? -- it is courteous to ask permission even for public 
domain stuff). Presumably {a'u} is itself and may be somewhere between {ui} 
and {e'o} in various dimensions (or beyond them on some). The book does not 
delimit "propositional attitude indicators" very precisely in terms of the 
quality of assertiveness and then waffles on what it does say. The only 
example of {a'u} pretty clearly has it assertive -- but I can imagine a 
twisted reading of that example that made it non-assertive, so even then the 
book is unclear. In any case, the usage of {a'u} is perfectly correct -- it 
just doesn't mean what xod wanted it to (or, rather, it meant a bit more 
than he wanted). Further, everyone knew from the context what xod was trying 
to say, so the fact that he said a bit more was not considered significant at 
the communication level. 

<(My
usage is intentionally experimental! I am constantly exploring as I use
Lojban. This seems to irritate a select few who prize computer-like
perfection above creativity and exploration and the resultant failures.)>

It is and we are all the better for it, since without it we would not have 
half the data we have on attitudinals, for one example. But some experiments 
fail, as you note, from inherent causes. The proper response to those is to 
try again another way; not to declare the experiment a success and the 
material to blame for its apparently not working (a kind of Definitional 
Sulk?). 
I agree that there have been such computerlike people in the past, but they 
are less common in Lojban than inthey were in Loglan, happily. The fact that 
things are going along as well as they are is a credit to their absence.

<None of this is a distraction from the disturbing fact that pc launched a
withering, uncalled-for attack on the translation of Alice.

As for flamewars, my experience has certainly taught me that the best
response to a troll -- which pc is undoubtedly -- is a loud *plonk*.
Nothing bothers them more. It might be amusing or educational to carry on
in Lojban, but we see his reading skills aren't fit for the task. So,
plonk it is.>

And Pooh-pooh at the end! Classic! (Please say I can use you!). I am unsure 
what "troll" signifies in cultic jargo, but I suspect it is not good, nor 
what "plonk" means (aside from bad Hock and a particularly unproductive 
inference procedure), but suppose it to indicate dropping the whole into the 
deep. 
As for the Alice "attack,"
I have to say that some of the work so far has been a lot better than I 
expected and I am delighted that it is so. Much of it, alas, has also shown 
that my fears were well-grounded, and even the best tends to show that Alice 
was a bad choice to work on -- and will continue to be for some time to come. 
I do wish my attack had been withering, but the leaves came on in spite of 
it.
So far as I can tell, no one else has commented recently on my Lojban reading 
skills outside of puzzling out pieces about your writing. On the other hand, 
my writing skills have been pretty universally condemned, but I'd be 
delighted to try again, if you would like to continue.