From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 15 15:15:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 9640 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 22:15:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.1e.173f472f (3926) for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1e.173f472f.285be2e5@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:15:01 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1e.173f472f.285be2e5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_1e.173f472f.285be2e5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/15/2001 4:11:07 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org 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. 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. --part1_1e.173f472f.285be2e5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/15/2001 4:11:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org 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
completely proper usage of a'u.


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.



--part1_1e.173f472f.285be2e5_boundary--