Nik Taylor wrote at 2003-05-12 19:42:52 (-0500) > Robert B Wilson wrote: > > it's more logical to me than distinguishing just intention. the > > result is often more important than the intention. if a person > > intends to fly from the top of one skyskraper to another by > > flapping their arms, their intention doesn't matter... they still > > go splat. i don't see why a language shouldn't distinguish both, > > though... > > But, it's easier to know one's own intention than effect. If I lie > and tell someone their cooking was good when it was actually bad, > is that beneficial or malicious? It's debatable. But, I can > definitely know for a fact that I *intended* it to be beneficial. > While I'm agnostic on whether it's more useful for a language to encode intention or effect, my understanding is that the words "malicious" and "malice" explicitly refer to to intent, so there's no such thing as a "malicious effect" in standard English.