From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jul 02 09:18:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Jul 2001 16:18:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 37677 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2001 16:18:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Jul 2001 16:18:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2001 16:18:28 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.6d.163c332a (4534) for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6d.163c332a.2871f8ce@aol.com> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:18:22 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tentative summary on Attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6d.163c332a.2871f8ce_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 352 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_6d.163c332a.2871f8ce_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/1/2001 10:25:55 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > I'm not sure that there are any other attitudinals which would need to have a > different grammatical effect based on whether they're in a subclause ({xu} > would only serve to emphasize what you're asking about, for example). This > is > why I think the "possible world" word should not be a UI. > That is, of course, one part of several proposals -- even if most UI have only marginally different effects. So, under these suggestions, {da'i} dould still be used. Of course, I am not yet convinced that you need {da'i} in the sentence as opposed to {se sruma} or some such thing: is it really being posited on the spot (not by you, so {da'idai}) or are you merely reporting that someone posited it? In either case, more work needs to be done, clearly. In a message dated 7/2/2001 7:50:01 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > . For example, although "I am happy > that P" entails P, ".ui P" means "P makes me happy" or "I'm happy, thanks to > P", where P is not necessarily the case. Something like ".ui ju'a P" would > mean "I'm happy, thanks to P being the case". Note that I'm not denying that > "a'o P" should mean "Hopefully, P" (as opposed to "P makes me hopeful", > though > I gather from your summary that a'o attached in the appropriate place might > mean that). > I am not sure that I agree about the interpretation of {ui p}: I take the {ui} to be an imediate response to the present p, not a generalization or other form of projection, and I take that as being relatively clear in the book. Now, inserting the {ui} somewhere inside or at the end of p has been suggested as a way changing this force to something like what you suggest (among other things) but that is still in the proposal stage. Again, while something like your unpacking of "hope" or {a'o} has been suggested, it has been countered by a number of cases of thinks hoped for but not pleasure generating and conversely. It is so far only a hypotheses that all (or any) of the projecting forms can be analyzed in this way (or that all or any of the 'simple emotions' have projective versions). My 3)? Well, the Book sets it up one way, but there are proposals to change it, specifically to show whether the sentence is asserted or not. --part1_6d.163c332a.2871f8ce_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/1/2001 10:25:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


I'm not sure that there are any other attitudinals which would need to have a
different grammatical effect based on whether they're in a subclause ({xu}
would only serve to emphasize what you're asking about, for example). This
is
why I think the "possible world" word should not be a UI.


That is, of course, one part of several proposals -- even if most UI have
only marginally different effects.  So, under these suggestions, {da'i} dould
still be used.  Of course, I am not yet convinced that you need {da'i} in the
sentence as opposed to {se sruma} or some such thing: is it really being
posited on the spot (not by you, so {da'idai}) or are you merely reporting
that someone posited it?  In either case, more work needs to be done, clearly.

In a message dated 7/2/2001 7:50:01 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


. For example, although "I am happy
that P" entails P, ".ui P" means "P makes me happy" or "I'm happy, thanks to
P", where P is not necessarily the case. Something like ".ui ju'a P" would
mean "I'm happy, thanks to P being the case". Note that I'm not denying that
"a'o P" should mean "Hopefully, P" (as opposed to "P makes me hopeful",
though
I gather from your summary that a'o attached in the appropriate place might
mean that).

I am not sure that I agree about the interpretation of {ui p}: I take the
{ui} to be an imediate response to the present p, not a generalization or
other form of projection, and I take that as being relatively clear in the
book.  Now, inserting the {ui} somewhere inside or at the end of p has been
suggested as a way changing this force to something like what you suggest
(among other things) but that is still in the proposal stage.

<Ideally, I'd like to see a careful separation between attitudes to/emotions
about a proposition, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, indications
of whether P (or even not-P) is being asserted. Hoping, for example, seems
to be made up of "P is desirable" and "I am not asserting that P is the
case" (or perhaps something stronger like "I am asserting that I do not
know that P is the case"). But one could have the assertives on their own
without the attitude indicators, and one could combine desidertation with
assertions ("P is desirable and is the case") and nonassertions (e.g.
"mmm! me a millionaire" = "p is desirable (& may or may not be the case)").
Perhaps, then, a'o could be seen as shorthand for "ui ju'anai" or similar.>

Again, while something like your unpacking of "hope" or {a'o} has been
suggested, it has been countered by a number of cases of thinks hoped for but
not pleasure generating and conversely.  It is so far only a hypotheses that
all (or any) of the projecting forms can be analyzed in this way (or that all
or any of the 'simple emotions' have projective versions).  

<Has agreement been reached about the grammar of (3), though? That seems to
be the key thing.>

My 3)? Well, the Book sets it up one way, but there are proposals to change
it, specifically to show whether the sentence is asserted or not.

--part1_6d.163c332a.2871f8ce_boundary--