From bpfk-list+bncCNTM-bHNDhD9iOTkBBoErDvc4Q@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 21 12:16:29 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy8KH-0005Ux-SS; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:29 -0700 Received: by ywp4 with SMTP id 4sf1387281ywp.16 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:19 -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:in-reply-to :message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version: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; bh=mmi+HUX5eB7AITfdi8A5jqaAeYUYSrNG8UOLV7CLC0s=; b=3KH3p+MhMy3n3O632mtB0qJoJ/ncbnFVbGLmATQV4Sh8u1Zblak+xzpAL0tfaJYToL 4zs9W3uTMrA5fM1dw2ZcuM+8/prsYnN2japsVCjI+ZI1XcV/CO5kCnnRR38ldNV3BnW0 08ZlAu5BTE/jFVvTEilMEChzAqfDADN3DsYRw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to :message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version: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; b=Vtu+7DNyo6H3FWYHtdje8zbA+LewlXV6PhSQxHJbpz62xvOdYxIHwxIyqNCAvSd4hH nfCK8B8SNkHprFtHQL/bSB0LC5p5S1SukdzlXZtfazK6pbly+5HMWGTn453F/v90XYBA 6D45UI1vskYUlttoWVz/omEkIe7lRFieGZA90= Received: by 10.90.217.17 with SMTP id p17mr1371686agg.32.1285096573784; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls2786572ibr.2.p; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.6.137 with SMTP id a9mr885794ica.22.1285096573004; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.6.137 with SMTP id a9mr885793ica.22.1285096572977; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cec.wustl.edu (express.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.16]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id e25si6528403ibk.3.2010.09.21.12.16.12; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 128.252.21.16 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of adam@pubcrawler.org) client-ip=128.252.21.16; Received: from grid.cec.wustl.edu (grid.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.20.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8381E8071; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:16:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:16:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: xorxes' idea of UI, as interpreted (was Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI.) In-Reply-To: <20100921185708.GB30871@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: References: <2de88d23-c009-41e9-bb9c-86d1425b1b64@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <-3659970292795760364@unknownmsgid> <20100921185708.GB30871@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: adam@pubcrawler.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 128.252.21.16 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of adam@pubcrawler.org) smtp.mail=adam@pubcrawler.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; format=flowed On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:19:35PM +0200, Daniel Brockman wrote: >>> So... I can tell this has already been shot out of the water. =D >>> >>> Any serious opinions either way? >> >> You don't think xorxes's opinion (all emotional indicators are >> vague as to whether the sentence is an assertion or a >> hypothetical, although some are usually used with hypothetical >> sentences due to the emotion most often occurring simultaneously >> as someone compares alternate universes, and some are usually used >> with assertions due to the emotion usually occurring as someone >> experiences or thinks about a fact, and you can always force one >> or the other using {da'i} or {ju'a}) is a serious one? Which by >> the way xalbo already seconded and incidentally I happen to agree >> with and find a very elegant and lucid way of defining these >> semantics. >> >> I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most experienced >> Lojbanists would probably agree with xorxes's definitions once >> they'd read and understood them and would probably benefit from >> doing so. > > I have a weird relationship with xorxes' suggestions; they almost > always offend me at first and then impress me later. :) This time > I supressed the former response and tried to think of it on its > merits. > > It's a little bit like the whole "CAhA when unspecified is > undefined" thing, which is disturbing in that it means that any > sentence could be false-to-fact without declaring so, but the > principle of non-gluteality applies better in this case than in that > one. > > I think I like it. > > I'd like to hear other oldbies' opinions. Especially if xorxes and > xalbo actually agree with the phrasing above. I (xalbo) do agree with the phrasing in that mail. The problem of statements being false-to-fact is already all around us, in tense ("No, I didn't tell you I'd take out the trash, I said I did take it out. Last week."), in number, in what fills all the implicit {zo'e} we leave scattered around, etc. The cost of infinite precision is infinite verbosity. The cost of infinite brevity is infinite vagueness, and the potential for infinite gluteality. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ There are always more fish in the sea, not as cute, nor as rich, but fish nevertheless. --From a fortune cookie -- 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.