[lojban] ui and truth (was: Re: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism)
Invent Yourself
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:56:53AM -0400, py...@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/7/2002 8:06:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > lojba...@lojban.org writes:
> > <<
> > > Ok; I agree that there is a gramatical difference, but not that
> > > there is a real semantic difference (except perhaps in which part
> > > of the claim is more important (the fact you are happy, or whatever
> > > the other claim is))...
> > >>
> > Nope. {ui [bridi]} is true or false depending on [bridi], and goes the same
> > way. If you are not, in fact, happy, you may be misleading but you haven't
> > said anything false.
> > {mi gleki lenu [bridi]} is true or false depending upon your attitude (happy
> > or not) about the event of [bridi]. Typically, it would also be false if
> > that event did not occur, but this is deputable. But certainly the mere fact
> > that the event did occur would not make {mi gleki...} true.
>
> It wouldn't be false if the event didn't occur because it uses "le".
> I agree that the "pure emotion indicators" don't affect truth value...
I'm not sure that pc restricted his claim to the pure emotional
indicators. Also, a long argument concluded that, sometimes, the pure
emotional indicators could affect truth, and that propositional attitude
indicators don't always.
And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure
emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can
be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that
...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning
``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion
and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of
explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points.
"
--
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn
Robert LeChevalier
And som I have no idea what they do or mean ({e'i} for example).
%^) I should think this one is easy in the current context. And, when
using naka'e instead of ka'enai could mark it with .e'i, and when using
ka'enai could mark it with .e'inai
><<
>And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure
>emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can
>be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that
>...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning
>``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion
>and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of
>explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points."
> >>
> From the historical view, this was a cop-out, brought about by the fact
> that there were cases which seemed (as noted) not always to go one way --
> and a significant number of people who were still in the state of
> malglico confusion on the issue even in the clear cases (there seem
> always to be some -- which does not make the loss of the distinction
> correct, only epidemic). CLL is given to such wishy-washies from time to
> time, as anyone in these kinds of discussion knows.
We MUST protest that the wishywashiness derived from the flipflopping that
pc did on the list every time it came up. %^)
pc categorized things a certain way when he annotated the TLI cmavo list
and I redesigned our cmavo based on his notes. Every time we tried to
document the list thereafter, he changed his interpretation a little
bit. The "significant number of people" we consulted on this was "1".
%^) (I admit to the possibility that the design represented
misunderstandings of those several consultations with one person %^)
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
py...@aol.com
<<
I'm not sure that pc restricted his claim to the pure emotional
indicators. Also, a long argument concluded that, sometimes, the pure
emotional indicators could affect truth, and that propositional attitude
indicators don't always.
>>
I don't recll a case of a "pure emotion" item (assuming these ae the non-fuzzy cases on the emotion side -- {ui}, for example) affecting truth values. The propositional attitudes don't always sounds like the fuzzy cases. And, of course, some of the critters in this heap affect truth values simply by moving the whole into directional -- or other non-assertive -- illocutionary acts ({e'u} and {e'o} for example). And som I have no idea what they do or mean ({e'i} for example).
<<
And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure
emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can
be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that
...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning
``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion
and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of
explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points."
>>
>From the historical view, this was a cop-out, brought about by the fact that there were cases which seemed (as noted) not always to go one way -- and a significant number of people who were still in the state of malglico confusion on the issue even in the clear cases (there seem always to be some -- which does not make the loss of the distinction correct, only epidemic). CLL is given to such wishy-washies from time to time, as anyone in these kinds of discussion knows.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.