fyky, young men, televisions, negatives in attitudinals

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:     Tue, 30 Jun 1992 23:03:17 -0400
>  From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@COM.GREBYN>
>
>  An 'interjection' CAN significantly change the meaning of a sentence in
>  Lojban (as well as in other languages).

Such as which ones?  I'm sorry, I don't know Yiddish, and I'm not sure
how the postposed "not!" works in English, but I doubt that it is an
interjection.

>  "ko na tavla e'anai" cannot mean "Don't speak".  How would you express
>  using attitudes "I forbid you to NOT speak".

Start from "Don't not speak" and add an element of prohibition.
My suggestion is {ko na na'e.e'anai tavla}.

>  A hopefully brief discussion:  All of the members of UI are in the
>  category of metalinguistic comments.  They are expressing ideas, claims,
>  or in the case of attitudinals, emotional reactions to the relationship
>  expressed by the sentence.

Yes, and my position, which I'm going to defend now, is that a VV
(that is, .VV or .V'V) word expresses an attitude towards what is
being predicated, leaving to words of other categories to express
whether it is being asserted or negated, and in which world.

>  The obvious example of a metalinguistic that does not claim a truth is
>  "xu", the yes/no question.  "xu do klama" (Are you going somewhere?)
>  does not claim that the answer is 'yes', or "go'i".

{xu} is an UI word, but not a VV one.

>  ".ai" (I intend) is also an obvious 'subjunctive'.  The relationship is
>  probably not true at the time the speaker expresses it, but the speaker
>  intends that it come to be true.

It is not required to be true at the time of speech, but neither would
it be if the attitudinal weren't there.

>  ".au" and ".a'o" (I want and I hope,
>  respectively) are rather weaker - they effectively eliminate the
>  truth-functional nature of the underlying bridi

Like hell they do.  Is {.ai fasnu} equivalent to {.ai na fasnu}?!

>  ".e'u" suggestion, and "e'o" petition also make hypothetical worlds.
>  When we say ".e'osai ko sarji la lojban." we are not making claims that
>  all readers DO or even WILL support Lojban - we are petitioning them to
>  make it true.

But - but - but that's because of the {ko} there, not because of the
attitudinal!  {.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.} has the same core meaning
as {ko sarji la lojban.}, with only strong request added - and neither
claims anything about the current world.

>  Summarizing:  the insertion of attitudinals may amend or eliminate the
>  truth-functional import of a sentence based on pragmatic grounds.  Logical
>  arguments will of course tend not to have attitudinals in them other than
>  statements of postulation.

So far, my own understanding has been that:

(1) A bridi is a truth claim (or a falsity claim if negated), made
with respect to a world which may be specified by tense markers or
discursives, or left unspecified.

(2) An attitudinal can't affect the truth-functional import of the
sentence, but can qualify it as responding to, or provoking, certain
emotion on part of the speaker or someone else.

Thus, {fasnu} always means `It happened / is happening / will happen
[under certain circumstances]', and therefore it is possible to say

{.ui fasnu}  `... and this makes me happy.'
{.uinai fasnu}  `... and this makes me unhappy.'
{.ii fasnu}  `... and this is frightening.'
{.iinai fasnu}  `... and this is reassuring.'
{.ai fasnu}  `... and that's how I intend[ed] it.'
{.ainai fasnu}  `... although I intend[ed] otherwise.'
{.ei fasnu}  `... - it has/had to.'
{.einai fasnu}  `... although it doesn't/didn't have to.'

and so on.  Now, if you are saying that there are some attitudinals
that make the (otherwise affirmative) sentence a denial, rather than
an assertion, of the proposition with respect to some world, then pray
make a full list of these attitudinals and post them.  Right now, as I
look at them, I can't tell which of the seventy-eight (with or without
suffixed {nai}) will make {fasnu} mean la'e {na fasnu}.

>  pu'o le nu do .eicai[ro'a] srasirdra zutse gi'e na'e kelci le do sanmi
>  kei doi citnau do .aicai na catlu le se tivni

I like it.  (And I'm glad to see that you have {.aicai na catlu}, not
{.ainaicai catlu}.)

Ivan