From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Jun 16 06:07:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 Jun 2001 13:07:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 25962 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2001 13:07:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Jun 2001 13:07:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2001 13:07:22 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (5.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5GD7KG37810 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:07:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010616083213.00dd1ed0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:12:54 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) In-Reply-To: References: <20010615131932.H14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 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 lojbab@lojban.org 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