Subject: Re: [lojban] The "system" of attitudinals

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:10:05

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > I have only seen claims that such use would be possible,
>
>John Cowan on July 8
><That is the "propositional attitude" sense of "a'o". But it too
>has a "pure emotion sense" as well: "a'o mi cevni le du'u
>la cevni cu zasti" probably does not mean "I hope that I believe
>that God exists," but rather " believe that God exists
>(which gives me hope).">
>
>I think there are other cases from John and Lojbab.

Yes, that's what I meant, theoretically made up examples. John
was not using it in a real conversation.

><In fact, nobody has explicitly mentioned yet another possibility
>for {a'o}: Not "I hope I go to the store", not "I go to the store,
>which gives me hope", but "I go to the store with hope".
>Of course, this one only works when {mi} is part of the bridi,
>and preferrably as an agent, which is a strong recommendation
>against its use.>
>
>Yes, no one has. Can you explain further, since I am not sure just what is
>involved.

I think what I meant is that it would be a mistake to use
attitudinals to describe the feelings of the agent of the
action qua agent of the action, just because it happens
to be the speaker.

So, {ui mi klama le zarci} reflects my happiness at my going
to the store, it does not say that I go happily to the store.

Similarly {ei mi klama le zarci} indicates that there is an
obligation that I go to the store, not that I go to the store
feeling obliged.

As maikl correctly points out, "I go happily" is something like
{mi gleki klama}, and "I go obliged" would be {mi bilga klama}.

This interpretational trap can be avoided by not using examples
with {mi}, so that there is no confusion of speaker and agent.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.