From richardt@flash.net Fri Jun 15 15:46:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 15 Jun 2001 22:46:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 94587 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 22:46:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2001 22:46:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout1-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 22:46:49 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.101.168]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5FMklU112750 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:46:47 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout1-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B2A7FAE.C657EE98@flash.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:35:42 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) References: <1e.173f472f.285be2e5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd pycn wrote: >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). So, you are unsure about whether {a'unaicai} requires the assertion of the sentence, and skeptical when others make a claim one way or another. Ok, let's continue.... >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. I can imagine both versions of most sentences I've seen with attitudinals. Though context does often make one version much more far-fetched than the other, it can't always work for everyone (and the more complex combinations of attitudinals likely pose more complex problems--we can't even agree on the scope of {a'o}!). If you can say these things and not see the beauty of just allowing all attitudinals in both forms, without having to question the speaker's intent, then we are very different people. Richard, who wishes he could join the fun by making a claim about his computer use during the Kennedy administration, but wasn't yet born...I'd talk about my Reagan days, but that just seems pathetic now...