short response to Lojbab on discursives

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> Discursive refers to words that are abbreviations for metalinguistic
> claims and modifiers.  "However" and "In addition" and "For example" and
> "etc." are simple examples.  But "etc." modifies a truth claim in that
> it indicates that there is more tot he claim than is stated.  "and vice
> versa", and "respectively" also affect truth claims because they serve
> as abbreviations for complex bridi that are related in structure to the
> current one.

So the so-called discursives are just a dustbin, and are not in fact all
abbreviations for metalinguistic claims.

> Related point from another post:
> >(ii) both that koa believes that I move the
> >earth, and that I intend that I move the earth.  But it definitely does
> >not mean koa believes that I intend to move the earth.  So I would
> >contend that UI can affect the truth conditions of utterances but not of
> >all bridi.  And, since "already" is something you'd want to say in
> >subordinate as well as main bridi, UI is the wrong selmao for it.
> But "already", and most other discursives are not something that are
> affected by speaker vs. ko'a oriented.  Indeed that may be one major
> difference between attitudinals and discursives.  UI selma'o refers only
> to the grammar, and not to the semantics.  It is possible to place UI in
> a sentence with long scope or with short scope.
> One problem with your analysis of this example is that you are forgetting
> the metalinguistic nature of UI, whatever its scope. There is no way UI
> can get at the subordinate selbri "move", and substitute for it a
> different selbri "intend".

The problem is (1) that I had thought the UI had a metalinguistic nature,
(2) that you, incredibly, appear to have thought I was forgetting this,
(3) that you continue to claim that UI has a metalinguistic nature,
(4) that you continue to claim that UI does not have a metalinguistic
nature.

coo, mie and