From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 17 08:33:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 17 Jun 2001 15:33:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 75028 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2001 15:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jun 2001 15:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2001 15:33:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.cd.7e9b1f7 (4444) for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:11 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_cd.7e9b1f7.285e27b7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_cd.7e9b1f7.285e27b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/16/2001 6:59:14 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > When discussing attitudinals in English, it seems wrong that some turn an > assertion into something else, and some don't. However, when you look at the > corresponding bridi, some turn an assertion into something else, and some > don't. > Thus having "a'o" and such be translated into English differently is > because of > something that would seem perfectly natural to someone who spoke entirely in > Lojban. > I am not sure that I follow. If I say {mi pacna lenu ko'a klama}, this is an assertion, while {a'o ko'a klama} is not. Is it the {ko'a klama} that you are talking about? It is not asserted in either case. But, alas, it is also not asserted in the case of {mi gleki lenu ko'a klama}, though it is presupposed in this case and not in the {pacna} case -- {lenu} clauses aren't asserted anywhere. So, maybe what you mean is that some attitude brivla form sentences with {lenu} clauses which presuppose the truth of the enclaused bridi and some don't. But that will not quite get the distinction, since, for example, {krici} does not presuppose the truth of its enclaused bridi but the corresponding attitudinal does combine to make an assertion of that bridi. --part1_cd.7e9b1f7.285e27b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/16/2001 6:59:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


When discussing attitudinals in English, it seems wrong that some turn an
assertion into something else, and some don't. However, when you look at the
corresponding bridi, some turn an assertion into something else, and some
don't.
Thus having "a'o" and such be translated into English differently is
because of
something that would seem perfectly natural to someone who spoke entirely in
Lojban.


I am not sure that I follow.  If I say {mi pacna lenu ko'a klama}, this is an
assertion, while {a'o ko'a klama} is not.  Is it the {ko'a klama} that you
are talking about? It is not asserted in either case.  But, alas, it is also
not asserted in the case of {mi gleki lenu ko'a klama}, though it is
presupposed in this case and not in the {pacna} case -- {lenu} clauses aren't
asserted anywhere.  So, maybe what you mean is that some attitude brivla form
sentences with {lenu} clauses which presuppose the truth of the enclaused
bridi and some don't.  But that will not quite get the distinction, since,
for example, {krici} does not presuppose the truth of its enclaused bridi but
the corresponding attitudinal does combine to make an assertion of that bridi.
--part1_cd.7e9b1f7.285e27b7_boundary--