Subject: Re: [lojban] Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapi...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:12 EDT

In a message dated 6/16/2001 7:41:27 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> la pycyn cusku di'e
> 
> > > i ti'e le nu se menli lo kucli cu romei lei sarcu be
> > > le nu pagbu le nunkelci
> >
> >Ahah! Someone else hs decided to test my reading ability. So today I just 
> >go
> >with what is meant, not with what is said.
> 
> Not fair! What did I say that I did not mean?
> 
> (My use of masses in purportedly settish places is intentional,
> if that's the objection.).
> 

Sorry, just preparing for attacks. I am used to your attitude toward sets 
and at least here agree with it. My only worry is whether being a part of 
the event of being a player is quite the same as taking part in the game -- I 
might be some other part of that event than the person: I might be the toy, 
for example. I have no ideas about abetter way to say it (except, of course, 
just {le nu kelci}) but the idiom seems mildly malglico.