Subject: Re: [lojban] Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

From: "Daniel Gudlat" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:35:36 +0200

On 15 Jun 2001, at 12:12, Anthony Roach wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:37:16PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > > > Is a smile an assertion to you?
> > > > 
> > No, because there is no proposition involved.
> > 
> I'm new to this list, I don't know much Lojban, and I've never been
> formally introduced to you all (Hi!), but I think I have idea on how
> to clarify this for xod and others:
> 
> This is an assertion: "I am smiling".
> This is not an assertion: ":-)"
> 
> The former is asserting something about myself, and the later is just
> me smiling.
<snip>
> "I am smiling." and ":-)" are on two different levels. The former is
> an assertion that involves the later (i.e. my smile). 
> 
> The same discussion can be applied to "mi gleki" and ".ui". The former
> asserts that I am happy, and the later conveyes my happiness to you in
> a textual form.
<snip again>
> Anyway, I think it's great that Lojban has attitudinals so we don't
> have to use things like ":-)" and ">:-|" to convey emotions in
> written or spoken communication, and if we turn the attitudinals
> into assertions, then what's the point of even having them? 

Thank you, Anthony, thank you. As appalled as I am from this ongoing 
discussion about a topic not even one of the participants seems to 
really have a grasp of, I'm unspeakably grateful for your levelheaded 
and insightful contribution to this shambles. I, too, have not yet 
progressed beyond the "mi klama le zarci" stage of lojban learning, 
although I've been on this list for about a year and a half. But the 
fact that there is at least one other member of the lojban list with 
a sane attitude about attitudinals is deeply reassuring (and no small 
bit disconcerting as well, as there really seems to be only two or 
three of us... :-( )

Since you basically said it all in the text quoted above, this is 
probably where I should stop, but being foolish and in the need to 
rant, I will first pick apart a few contributions of la xorxes - not 
because I dislike him or what he said more than anyone elses 
contributions to this thread, but because he provides a few nice 
hooks to dangle a rant from. Then, I'll try to state, as calmly and 
matter-of-factly as possible, my take on the matter.

Warning, the following going to be rantish in nature, so don your 
asbestos underwear before reading on!

la xorxes cusku di'e:
> la lojbab cusku di'e
> 
> a'o mi caca'a klama
> 
> The only way I can understand that sentence is as non-assertive:
> "I hope I'm actually going". If you use a'o followed by what
> you intend as an assertion, I will almost certainly misunderstand
> you. Hopefully you won't take {xu mi caca'a klama} or {da'i mi
> caca'a klama} as assertions as well!
<snip>
> If he believes that he is actually going, he shouldn't say that he
> hopes that he is actually going.

Huh? If you want pacna, you bloody well know where to find it!

He states that he is going. He also expresses a feeling of hope, 
which probably is connected to his going, what exactly that 
connection is, is not made clear. Reading anything more into this 
sentence is taking the list of attitudinals and bridi phrases posted 
by Rob Speer (?) and making it into a equivalence table. If this is 
really what you want, I would urge you to re-read chapter 13 of the 
Reference Grammar, then take a long calm stroll outside and think 
about what you read for a while before posting to this thread again!

Oh, and please leave the poor discursives, observationals and other 
members of selma'o UI - a purely grammatical category - out of this. 
We are talking attitudinals only!

And in another email, la xorxes says:
> They are not assertions. If you say {ui ko'a klama}, and I
> say {na go'i}, I am not saying "No, you're not happy", I'm
> saying "No, ko'a is not coming". If you say {mi gleki le nu
> ko'a klama}, then my {na go'i} does mean "No, you're not
> happy".

Yes, that's right. But you seem to be a little confused as to what 
exactly your standpoint in all of this is (no more so than several 
other participants in this raging battle, I might add): ui mi klama 
says that I come, while a'o mi klama says that I merely hope to? 
Isn't that a little on the contradictory side of things?

<This is the tentative end of my venting, I'll try to be a little 
more composed after this.>

Yes, the RefGram is contradictory in this as well, but it clearly 
states that the whole distinction of propositional and pure 
attitudinals is shaky and has been made mainly for the purpose of 
explanation, "it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific 
points". So why the freaking hell (sorry, I'll be calm after this - 
promise) is everyone trying to read more into this than is clearly 
stated to be there in the first place?

Attitudinals express attitudes, if you want to assert anything, 
that's what bridi are there for. Attittudinals are lojbans ingenious, 
culturally neutral, and unambigous way to express emotions and are 
therefore the more or less exact (though vastly extended) equivalent 
of smileys. I like this a lot and I'll attack anyone who tries to 
make them into the short version of some bridi claim or other, 
because, as Anthony has so nicely stated, what then would be the 
point of having the attitudinals in the first place? And, perhaps 
even more important: How then are we supposed to express our attitude 
reliably and culturally neutral, when a simple smile might get us 
gutted by the next Kzinti?

So that everyone has the chance to call me a hypocrite, I'll add one 
more thing: This discussion is without the slightest bit of doubt
exactly one of those things which should be discussed in lojban 
exclusively by fluent speakers of the language, as Lojbab has already 
remarked.

So I would request that we all let this issue rest immediately until 
the day a number of fluent lojbanists feel the need to discuss it 
again. Hopefully, the discussion will be more civilized and a lot 
more fruitfull than what we had here until now.

co'o mi'e daniel