From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jul 01 18:37:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Jul 2001 01:37:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 57980 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2001 01:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Jul 2001 01:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2001 01:37:20 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.26.17993d3f (4260) for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <26.17993d3f.28712a4a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:37:14 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tentative summary on Attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_26.17993d3f.28712a4a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_26.17993d3f.28712a4a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/1/2001 4:37:54 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > You can hypothesize a "possible world" as the whole sentence, or in a > subclause > - the {da'i} should be able to apply to {poi} instead of the whole {.i}, > changing the meaning of the sentence. > > However, attitudinals in different locations don't change the meaning of the > sentence from what it would be if the attitudinal was at the beginning of > the > sentence, in the state of attitudinals right now. > > Result: anything that creates possible worlds, so that counterfactual > statements can be discussed logically, cannot be a UI. > Let me see if I get you. In "the man who would be king came in" the "counterfactual" or however you describe it is in the restrictive relative clause, but if we put {da'i} or some such there, it would leak out and make the whole hypothetical "the man who is king would come in," or so? I think that is right under the present rules, though relative clauses could be fairly easily accomodated out. The general problem might remain -- and once we start accomodating things out we could get carried away to the full set of suggestions. So, I am not sure whether this shows that some, at least, of the non-assertive uses can't be UI or whether it shows that we have to set up some distribution rules of the sort suggested. Or maybe look for a different approach altogether. --part1_26.17993d3f.28712a4a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/1/2001 4:37:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


You can hypothesize a "possible world" as the whole sentence, or in a
subclause
- the {da'i} should be able to apply to {poi} instead of the whole {.i},
changing the meaning of the sentence.

However, attitudinals in different locations don't change the meaning of the
sentence from what it would be if the attitudinal was at the beginning of
the
sentence, in the state of attitudinals right now.

Result: anything that creates possible worlds, so that counterfactual
statements can be discussed logically, cannot be a UI.


Let me see if I get you.  In "the man who would be king came in" the
"counterfactual" or however you describe it is in the restrictive relative
clause, but if we put {da'i} or some such there, it would leak out and make
the whole hypothetical "the man who is king would come in," or so?  I think
that is right under the present rules, though relative clauses could be
fairly easily accomodated out.  The general problem might remain -- and once
we start accomodating things out we could get carried away to the full set of
suggestions.  So, I am not sure whether this shows that some, at least, of
the non-assertive uses can't be UI or whether it shows that we have to set up
some distribution rules of the sort suggested.  Or maybe look for a different
approach altogether. --part1_26.17993d3f.28712a4a_boundary--