From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jun 16 17:13:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 17 Jun 2001 00:13:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 98345 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2001 00:13:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jun 2001 00:13:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2001 00:13:56 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.32.1682c573 (3866) for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32.1682c573.285d5038@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:13:44 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapi... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_32.1682c573.285d5038_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_32.1682c573.285d5038_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/16/2001 4:38:30 PM Central Daylight Time, gudlat@web.de writes: > 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. > > > "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. > > > 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. Anthony's contribution is both clear and succinct. But he has not said anything that has not been said several times before, although some of the participants seem to have missed the point in the past. Hopefully, they will not miss it this time (I am coming at this after reading notes subsequent to Anthony;s so no that that hope was not completely fulfilled). 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... :-( ) I have only seen a couple of people genuinely confused -- though they have been vociferous -- and a couple of others who have been clear but have generalized a small problem into a global one. > > Warning, the following going to be rantish in nature, so don your > asbestos underwear before reading on! (A side word of advice. I have taken on xorxes before and I think almost always lost; he is good and he knows his stuff. And he is a fierce debater. You'd be better off taking on pc, who pretty much agrees with xorxes on this one. > > 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! > > > 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! Sorry, but in English "I hope that" is ambiguous in the crucial way: one for claiming a hope and one for expressing it. xorxes is clearly meaning the expressive form, not the claiming one, so he does emphatically NOT want {pacna}. But the expressive form of hoping is to express what that hope is, namely in this case that I am going. A look at the examples in 13 will show that {a'o} behaves like {ai} and {au} as well as {e'a} and {e'o} and {e'i} pointing to yet undecided issues and taking sides, but not asserting that the matter is settled. Now, this may be a mistake about where these critters were put, since they look like things that express emotive reactions to settled states of affairs ({ui}, say) and, indeed, Lojbab and John have taken them as such -- along with the projective sense, not alone; and they are all called attitudinals. But they do behave differently, as most people in the discussion admit-- and then go off somewhere with that. > 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! We have for the moment, we are just dealing wiht attitude indicators. > > 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? > No, it is just the difference between the two kinds of attitudes (not that these actually correspond to the two lists, given by initial letter). Look > > > 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? What does not work -- for sure-- is aligning the emotive / propositional attitude distinction (which needs sharpening a bit) with the initial letter distinctions. It may also be that placing any one item in one group rather than the other is wrongheaded, that every item does a bit of each though each has a predominant pattern. But the two different behaviors are all clearly present, and maybe the third also. > > 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? Unfortunately, the assertion-expression dichotomy is not the main problem, though some have gotten it mixed in with the other as well. > > 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. Unfortunately, until we get at least some of it sorted out, we can't discuss it in Lojban because what some of the crucial sentences in that discussion mean is just what is at stake here. If I use {a'o} for English "Hopefully'" (usage ignoring Miss Gradgrind's strictures) and someone else uses it ala Lojbab, we have talked right by each other, one admitting what the other thinks unsettled, one looking to a future the other cannot yet even conceive. --part1_32.1682c573.285d5038_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/16/2001 4:38:30 PM Central Daylight Time, gudlat@web.de
writes:

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.

Anthony's contribution is both clear and succinct. But he has not said
anything that has not been said several times before, although some of the
participants seem to have missed the point in the past. Hopefully, they
will not miss it this time (I am coming at this after reading notes
subsequent to Anthony;s so no that that hope was not completely fulfilled).

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... :-( )

I have only seen a couple of people genuinely confused -- though they have
been vociferous -- and a couple of others who have been clear but have
generalized a small problem into a global one.

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

(A side word of advice. I have taken on xorxes before and I think almost
always lost; he is good and he knows his stuff. And he is a fierce debater.
You'd be better off taking on pc, who pretty much agrees with xorxes on this
one.

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!

Sorry, but in English "I hope that" is ambiguous in the crucial way: one for
claiming a hope and one for expressing it. xorxes is clearly meaning the
expressive form, not the claiming one, so he does emphatically NOT want
{pacna}. But the expressive form of hoping is to express what that hope is,
namely in this case that I am going. A look at the examples in 13 will show
that {a'o} behaves like {ai} and {au} as well as {e'a} and {e'o} and {e'i}
pointing to yet undecided issues and taking sides, but not asserting that the
matter is settled.
Now, this may be a mistake about where these critters were put, since they
look like things that express emotive reactions to settled states of affairs
({ui}, say) and, indeed, Lojbab and John have taken them as such -- along
with the projective sense, not alone; and they are all called attitudinals.
But they do behave differently, as most people in the discussion admit-- and
then go off somewhere with that.

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!

We have for the moment, we are just dealing wiht attitude indicators.

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?

No, it is just the difference between the two kinds of attitudes (not that
these actually correspond to the two lists, given by initial letter). Look
at the second paragraph in 13.3.

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?

What does not work -- for sure-- is aligning the emotive / propositional
attitude distinction (which needs sharpening a bit) with the initial letter
distinctions. It may also be that placing any one item in one group rather
than the other is wrongheaded, that every item does a bit of each though each
has a predominant pattern. But the two different behaviors are all clearly
present, and maybe the third also.

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?

Unfortunately, the assertion-expression dichotomy is not the main problem,
though some have gotten it mixed in with the other as well.

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.

Unfortunately, until we get at least some of it sorted out, we can't discuss
it in Lojban because what some of the crucial sentences in that discussion
mean is just what is at stake here. If I use {a'o} for English "Hopefully'"
(usage ignoring Miss Gradgrind's strictures) and someone else uses it ala
Lojbab, we have talked right by each other, one admitting what the other
thinks unsettled, one looking to a future the other cannot yet even conceive.

--part1_32.1682c573.285d5038_boundary--