Re: la'e

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

> >> As you yourself have said, "kau" is an attitudinal, and sentences
> >> with attitudinals in them don't necessarily allow of logical
> >> analysis.
> >
> >I hasten to add, though, that kau (or Q-kau) very much affects
> >truth-conditional meaning.
>
> The pattern, well-established in Lojban, is that in general, if a bridi is
> true without the attitudinal, it is considered true with the attitudinal.

What is even more well-established (since I once maintained a
contrary view of which I was disabused) is that the truth-conditional
insignificance of attitudinals is merely a statistical tendency
(i.e. most UI are like that) rather than a firm rule. Some Ui
(e.g. po`o) can most definitely affect truth-conditional meaning, and
kau is one of them. If this were not so, then the prescription
would be incoherent.

> There are of course other conventions found in logic.  But I consider a
> xu question "true" if it is true without the xu, and this seems like it should
> apply to a xukau as well.

{xu broda} = {ma jei broda} rather than {broda}

> There are attitudinals that can change or murk up truth vakue, but they
> generally do so by bringing in an internal world to contrast with the real
> world so it becomes unclear which world applies to the bridi truth value.
> I see no unreal world invoked by xukau.

xukau doesn't invoke an unreal world, that's true.

--And