From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jun 16 15:15:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 Jun 2001 22:15:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 25162 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.50.17392053 (1759) for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50.17392053.285d3471@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:15:13 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudina... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_50.17392053.285d3471_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_50.17392053.285d3471_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/15/2001 8:20:30 PM Central Daylight Time, richardt@flash.net writes: > 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.... > No, I am unsure whether that is what *Robin* meant, I have no doubt that {a'unaicai} is assertive. I see the beauties just fine. I also see some flaws. I am unsure which way the advantages go and so, being conservative in this at least and under the by-laws, I am inclined to work with the current system as long as possible. My wife reminded me that strictly I started under the Eisenhower administration, in the summer of 1960 (but my PhD diploma is signed by Reagan). --part1_50.17392053.285d3471_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/15/2001 8:20:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
richardt@flash.net writes:


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....


No, I am unsure whether that is what *Robin* meant, I have no doubt that
{a'unaicai} is assertive.

<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.>

I see the beauties just fine.  I also see some flaws.  I am unsure which way
the advantages go and so, being conservative in this at least and under the
by-laws, I am inclined to work with the current system as long as possible.

<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...>
My wife reminded me that strictly I started under the Eisenhower
administration, in the summer of 1960 (but my PhD diploma is signed by
Reagan).
--part1_50.17392053.285d3471_boundary--