Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>>Yes, but it's a little more complicated than that. The attitudinal is a
>>>sign for the 'face value' emotion, as per the refgram, and the 'face
>>>value' emotion is a sign for the real emotion, as per the context. The
>>>second part of this does not involve language, so no language rules apply
>>>to it.
>>
>>I do not presume to exclude this from language.
>
>Languages have no place making such rules.

How can we possibly know what is or is not the limit of language.  I'm far
from being a Chomskyan, but the boundary between biology and conscious
choice in expression is quite uncertain.  As fir what is language - I
 think
it is a matter of definition.  I choose to include all means of expression
which CAN be consciously controlled at least in part.  Lojban as a language
design can prescribe for that entire range of expression.  Whether people
will or will not follow that prescription is of course an individual decision.

But Lojban is also among other things designed to test the sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis.  If it did nothing that "language has no place doing" in terms
of possible effect on human thought and culture, then it pretty much could
NOt have a SWH -related effect.  It happens that I think the attitudinals are
an area where I think such effects may result, but that presumes that people
use them as intended - as expressions of emotions and not manipulative
statements primarily aimed at affecting others' emotions