Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals)

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:12:54 -0400

At 04:54 PM 06/15/2001 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > > > > > >.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Give it up. You are wrong. The Book clearly shows that a'u is a
> > > > > propositional attitude indicator. Page 302.
> > > >
> > > > You weren't using .a'u. You were using pe'idai. Much less obvious.
> > >
> > > Do you see "a'u" in the sentence above?
> >
> > I see .a'unaicai, which is glossed as 'extreme repulsion'. Repulsion as
> > to an idea does not, as far as I am aware, imply that the idea is wrong.
>
>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,

Since my opinion is at issue, I will state clearly that I don't agree with 
xod on this. The book rather clearly says on page 302 that all of the 
propositional attitudes can sometimes be emotive, and "a'u" I consider one 
of the more emotive of them. Furthermore, I don't think that xod really 
used it propositionally.

To interpret the sentence propositionally, I have to posit a world wherein 
translating Alice is evil, and then say the speaker finds this world or 
situation repugnant. Then, because pe'idai follows immediately and 
attaches despite being written separately, it appears that xod is 
empathizing BOTH the repugnance to the proposition, as well as the opinion 
to pc. This doesn't seem likely. (If the a'unai had been attached to the 
word fanva, then maybe it might convey pc's expressed attitude, but I'm not 
sure.)

One problem is that the pe'i(dai) DOES make the bridi quite clearly 
assertive about the real world and not a hypothetical one. The only 
evidential that seems like it might not be assertive is the one of 
postulation, since one can postulate an imaginary world or some fact about 
the real world. If the sentence is an assertation by the use of pe'i then 
it cannot be merely propositional. So xod used both propositional and 
non-propositional members of UI in the sentence, and barring context, 
Lojban bridi are assertions.

So xod was inconsistent about the propositionality of the sentence. And 
indeed, I think it would have been impossible for him to convey both his 
and his perception of pc's attitudes in the sentence and have it be both 
clear and correct.

Now I don't think that xod was proposing a world where translating Alice 
was evil, so we immediately need to move this out of the propositional 
realm. There is no doubt that someone is asserting that in fact 
translating Alice is evil, though the pe'idai then makes it clear that this 
assertion is attributed to someone else, along with the repugnance to the 
assertion. It >IS< clear that xod doesn't believe the evil part.

Now having said that I don't agree with xod, I have to still say that I 
understood the sentence, because the confusion of attitudinals has no 
plausible resolution except to assume he intended what he meant.

>and
>the understanding of all the readers besides pc all indicate that it was
>completely proper usage of a'u.

I think the a'u was improper, but I also think xod was trying to do too 
much with attitudinals to convey both his attitudes and his perceptions of 
other's attitudes in the same sentence so that I am unsure what "proper" 
would be except to use more than one sentence.

>As for pe'idai, that might be incorrect or
>controversial, but we might need another two weeks to sort that out. (My
>usage is intentionally experimental!

I don't think that pe'idai is inherently wrong, but if you are empathizing, 
stick to empathizing and don't try mixing modes.

>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.)

I don't think anyone, including pc, is irritated by your 
exploration. Indeed, he has clearly said that he approves of that 
exploration. But the perils of exploration is that one can take a wrong 
path. pc might have been undiplomatic about telling you he thought you 
were wrong, but then he could legitimately have been irritated by your 
failed empathy of his attitudes both towards the translation and towards 
your Lojban.

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

His attack was indeed withering. As for "uncalled-for", I didn't know that 
we had to wait for opinions to be "called for" on this group in order to 
express them. he could have been more diplomatic, but I'll admit that I 
have been comparably undiplomatic about the same thing at times - people do 
seem to like to choose the most difficult things to translate rather than 
the easier ones. This is probably because it is the difficult parts of 
language are what attracts people to Lojban.

>As for flamewars, my experience has certainly taught me that the best
>response to a troll -- which pc is undoubtedly -- is a loud *plonk*.

I don't think that pc is a troll, given that the bulk of his writings are 
both substantive and positive contributions to the list. As such, your 
characterization of him as such is a far nastier flame than any he has 
delivered towards you.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org