From bpfk-list+bncCICntNPQBRD73LvkBBoEN3WyQg@googlegroups.com Mon Sep 13 20:39:56 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OvMN5-0008Fx-7b; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:56 -0700 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11sf4356152gwb.16 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:mime-version :received:received:date:x-ip:user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=T/2VMWERRiKIXSvx+D727ITDNWRXpW3mYr9SKU8rCO4=; b=Rz1rS0ugBYtPTk6yc+kv6I8AHEbDgytruQ5QzIYxUUjpXG0y2jz/hSYDBRhbm9Hlzf G2Q549g56D464RkV/6YhgPNSullLQgmipugX042HagRmfvAhus9GRjS9VkVdOp62k4DU 6zcTmYJ1HmvcB90GmXTbHhxo1DD0OCCsCGYNU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:x-ip:user-agent:x-http-useragent :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=eoFOnLEu5jCb0h1RqmcrJAup8hkArUS9fduxHK3OkzMwxh6pNU7aFMpiRpJkj+P/W7 0yOPnhtrzZMh/twWxXCAOSutj0xVFdjaKGXBQ9sMv1QqTxvtZLP1oORTxpWbxHiSBt36 a/nmzNgL4xGFcrRWPmvsdwii0apS/XVCGxuyc= Received: by 10.91.215.15 with SMTP id s15mr517149agq.19.1284435579680; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.17.28 with SMTP id 28ls816738agq.6.p; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.17.13 with SMTP id u13mr505528agi.3.1284435579310; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-IP: 166.134.131.207 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Ubuntu/10.04 (lucid) Firefox/3.6.9,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: Subject: [bpfk] The Case for UI. From: Lindar To: BPFK X-Original-Sender: lindarthebard@yahoo.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam_score: 2.4 X-Spam_score_int: 24 X-Spam_bar: ++ X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: The Case for UI. (or ".AI KARAMBA") I am wholly unsure of how to write an actual proposal, so here is my best attempt. According to CLL Chapter 13 Section 3 examples 3.8 through 3.12 (and pretty much the whole chapter) a large number of UI1 do not actually work as emotional indicators, but as evidentials like in UI2. Rather than {.oi} expressing annoyance at a particular thing, it states that it works more like "Complaint: ", which to me seems more like something out of UI2. Similarly, {.ai} seems to be "Intent: " rather than expressing a feeling of intent, {.e'u} is "Suggestion: " instead of feeling suggestive, and {.e'o} is "Request: " instead of a feeling of petition. [...] Content analysis details: (2.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 X_IP Message has X-IP header 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (lindarthebard[at]yahoo.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [74.125.83.61 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.6 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4831] 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature The Case for UI. (or ".AI KARAMBA") I am wholly unsure of how to write an actual proposal, so here is my best attempt. According to CLL Chapter 13 Section 3 examples 3.8 through 3.12 (and pretty much the whole chapter) a large number of UI1 do not actually work as emotional indicators, but as evidentials like in UI2. Rather than {.oi} expressing annoyance at a particular thing, it states that it works more like "Complaint: ", which to me seems more like something out of UI2. Similarly, {.ai} seems to be "Intent: " rather than expressing a feeling of intent, {.e'u} is "Suggestion: " instead of feeling suggestive, and {.e'o} is "Request: " instead of a feeling of petition. There is a rather big inconsistency in this regard as some UI1 function this way, whereas some others such as {.ui}, {.iu}, and {.io} actually express pure emotion. As I understand it, this has been a very long debate, especially with regard to {.ai} (hence the alternate title). I hope to bring this to an end. We -cannot- meet half way on this, because the split consistency of UI1 is the biggest problem I have (otherwise I'd just create new experimental cmavo that have the meanings I want and there'd be no problem). I propose to change this to one of two things: Option 1: Make all UI1 function the same by making them all evidential- like such that they work like {.e'u} as described in CLL; create a new set of cmavo based on UI1 with similar meanings, but indicating pure emotion. The best way I can really gloss these is seems reminiscent of the robot from Star Wars: KotOR. I'll throw in a few nicer glosses where I can think of them, though.. Suggested table and definitions follows: a'a - "Statement of Attention:" (Attentively...) a'e - "Alert:" ai - "Intent: " (I intend...) a'i - "Difficulty: " a'o - "Hope: " (I hope that...) au - "Desire: " (I desire...) a'u - "Interest: " e'a - "Permission: " e'e - "Competence: " (Competantly...) ei - "Obligation: " I should... e'i - "Restriction: " e'o - "Request: " (I request...) e'u - "Suggestion: " (I suggest...) i'a - "Acceptive Statement: " (I accept...) ia - "Belief: " (I believe...) i'e - "Approval: " (I approve of...) ie - "Agreement: " (I agree that/with...) i'i - "Collective Statement: " (Together...) ii - "Fear: " (I fear...) i'o - "Appreciative Statement: " (I appreciate...) io - "Respective Statement: " i'u - "Familiarity: " or "Deja Vu: " (Familiarly...) iu - "Expression of Love: " o'a - "Expression of Pride: " (I'm proud that...) o'e - "Expression of Closeness: " o'i - "Caution: " oi - "Complaint: " o'o - "Expression of Patience: " o'u - "Expression of Calm: " u'a - "Gain: " ua - "Discovery: " u'e - "Awe: " ue - "Surprise: " u'i - "Amusement: " ui - "Expression of Joy: " u'o - "Boldness: " uo - "Completion: " u'u - "Repentance: " uu - "Pity: " Perhaps these aren't the -best- examples, but it outlines the general idea behind how they should be defined. The next part is to create a separate table of matching words which do not in any way change the meaning of the bridi and only express the emotion of the speaker. Ca'a or Va'a perhaps? .ia'a .ia'e, etc. Option 2: Make all UI1 express only emotion. Take the specific UI that do change the meaning of the bridi and move them to a new space in UI2 with cmavo that correspond to their counterparts (via previously mentioned method) as perhaps not all UI1 need an irrealis counterpart as in option 1. The cmavo in particular I would move are: a'o - ia'o (hopefully vs. I hope that...) au - i'au (desirably vs. I desire...) e'a - ie'a (*permissiveness* vs. I permit...) ei - i'ei ( *obligation-ness* vs. I should...) e'o - ie'o ( *requestive-ness* vs. I request...) e'u - ie'u ( *suggestiveness* vs. I suggest...) ia - i'ia ( *belief* vs. I believe...) o'i - io'i ( *cautious* vs. Caution: ) oi - i'oi ( *annoyance* vs. Complaint: ) ua - i'ua ( *yooreeka!* vs. Discovery: ) u'u - iu'u ( *repenting* vs. Repenting Statement: ) uu - i'uu ( *pity* vs. Condolence: ) I'm sure there's some better conversion method than what I've done here (tacking "I" on everything), but that's not exactly the most important part of the proposal, so I'll leave that up to the BPFK. Option 3: Shut up, Lindar; nobody cares. You have a stupid haircut and nobody likes you. Certainly a viable option. I would like a discussion to take place to decide which option is better (or perhaps to suggest a better option?) and to figure out what sort of pattern should be used to generate the new UI required for the first two options. Thank you very much, and as I've said before, I apologise for beating the dead zombie horse. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.