From bpfk-list+bncCK30vq5WEM7ju-QEGgQAMbSp@googlegroups.com Mon Sep 13 20:54:06 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OvMao-0000JU-0f; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:54:05 -0700 Received: by pwj6 with SMTP id 6sf423103pwj.16 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition; bh=x2C4JFAsNUgnfR0L9n3zbDaTHPDfG6VX85yGjrDC9E8=; b=Jd4RS3EWm69T9BF+puBcODCosSwXZ3uIKkjhcatsaCZ1+MI5zLBWtqjPTjCjROuH12 kZRq4vYV+mNUp7rxZ7jpKj1x3oOeGQHAI/nMMwWndcfVU+rLGjZjhqyo1jrOhjund1Tk 7fHrTpTwN5/3vQxGRDP+Z4EXANdE+vxOV5yhM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition; b=A2yYdyzYBlK4V0LP7CCnLxsQejTeE+gUli7kYNL/QodtDWa4Y/alMkPEmz0oOY0qwk gSfkl/EsyIodtw987ww++mxDbwO0izzY99WaDHGjztxNPLfDxpAN5x780cvLbQlMzd10 gCBuZSFBuQ2oGE3lUQ2CQ0eInljjnAl4o+ZU0= Received: by 10.115.67.11 with SMTP id u11mr316906wak.8.1284436430430; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.115.98.19 with SMTP id a19ls1136978wam.1.p; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.183.11 with SMTP id g11mr1158745waf.4.1284436430087; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.183.11 with SMTP id g11mr1158744waf.4.1284436430020; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (chain.digitalkingdom.org [64.81.66.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j18si8449640wan.1.2010.09.13.20.53.49; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 64.81.66.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.81.66.169; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OvMaa-0000JE-Ir for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:53:48 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] The Case for UI. Message-ID: <20100914035348.GG13937@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 64.81.66.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org 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 Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:39:39PM -0700, Lindar wrote: > 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. As far as I know, {.oi} is a pure emotion indicator; where do you see otherwise? > Similarly, {.ai} seems to be "Intent: " rather than expressing a > feeling of intent, Please avoid {.ai} for this discussion; it is already controversial. > {.e'u} is "Suggestion: " instead of feeling suggestive, and {.e'o} > is "Request: " instead of a feeling of petition. Those are irrealis as far as I know, yes. > There is a rather big inconsistency in this regard as some UI1 UI1 vs. UI2 is simply how people decided to group them at some time in the past; it has no formal impact on the language at all, they are all just UI. > 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). The issue with {.ai} is totally seperate. > I hope to bring this to an end. That's unlikely. > We -cannot- meet half way on this, Then you might as well walk away now; I have little or no interest in discussion with someone who absolutely will not compromise. > I propose to change this to one of two things: > > Option 1: Make all UI1 Again: "UI1" has little or no meaning. Grammatically, there is just "UI". Some of them have irrealis meanings, some of them are pure emotional expression, some of them convert between the two sort of (da'i), and some of them are just bizarre (kau). > 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. You're talking about destroying the meaning of basically *every* piece of Lojban ever. No. > oi - "Complaint: " > ui - "Expression of Joy: " Picking on the two that are most well understood: what is it you're intending these to mean, exactly? Surely you do not intend irrealis "Complaint:"? If not, what is the change? These look like pure emotional expression, which are what we have now. Seriously: I have no idea how this is different than what we have now for those two words. > 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. Again: this breaks a *staggering* amount of extant Lojban. Why? You've given no reason why this is so amazingly important. So different words have different semantics; who cares? Having said that, I'd support this for the sake of consistency if I thought there was any chance at all of it being approved by either the BPFK as a whole or the LLG membership. I don't think there is. > a'o - ia'o (hopefully vs. I hope that...) There's no need to have a new set of words; just an irrealis marker, i.e. {da'i}. -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- 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.