From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 11 16:05:31 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LAvX9-0002WM-Nu for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:05:31 -0800 Received: from mail-bw0-f12.google.com ([209.85.218.12]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LAvX4-0002VA-CP for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:05:31 -0800 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so1436638bwz.10 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:05:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=lkKFNpJeBPSrveuxoj1a1Y11K0EBMp4LTnfehLLyqbs=; b=NZHhWFLtTEvRsnvpkXz1EJtZT6tQMMpxPrGaFfsJtjJFATkx9lrKEH19VfbIxIzYzg HKr5qkl6yuKKRx6XRhST5uPYLuaAdU5HEh/1vaoQ8Lr9ucyDo6fcZKk/47jJV/3AaGdo JCm63umPS6u5sFwMu7mbb/qgxv+DarZ4yw6vw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=M2dVG2ycCxfmgXF/bVnylPnKFcdvC6grvQQ0jjlRCZs9fcvta66O++ElpB8Bj/LjHH INDSggpu6ZYzzOEfGV5OQHi2VlzapilOnZEK//Z+DK2XBrOL/E6/tsNrgIc3JzL9NnmV rbaYph33kMHqGO/2IotMTSNstkMH5+yaFRWIk= Received: by 10.103.221.5 with SMTP id y5mr1639933muq.66.1229040052224; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.134.16 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <467245c20812111600r2c8b58fbtb5929080eaffa0fd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:00:52 -0700 From: pyrosim To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: attitudinals question In-Reply-To: <12d58c160812111545g4bdce2caj623c6647b62b014e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_132194_11177663.1229040052221" References: <5715b9300812111452h2771b99cnffea157a0484adfb@mail.gmail.com> <467245c20812111515j4ac4338fs3b4f8ca43fc2c1f@mail.gmail.com> <467245c20812111520p4b9512aex50717c3379f27f1@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160812111545g4bdce2caj623c6647b62b014e@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 1087 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pyrosim@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_132194_11177663.1229040052221 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Ah, I did have it backwards. And .ui pei is definitely the right way to ask that question. However, is "xu .uidai" still a valid utterance? And if so, what does it mean? -Dylan On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM, komfo,amonan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM, pyrosim wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Luke Bergen >> wrote: >> > >> > Is it legitimate to use attitudinals as regular words? ie. is the >> following lojban sentence acceptable? >> > >> > xu do .ui >> > >> > or does this just mean \"are you \"? >> > >> > - Luke Bergen > > > >> My naive thought would be that the .ui would bond to the whole >> sentence and the xu would bond to the do, leaving \"How do you feel >> about yourself? :)\" I think the sentence you are looking for is \"xu >> .ui dai\". Attitudinals are usually attributed to the speaker, unless >> otherwise specified (using dai). That sentence doesn\'t have a selbri, >> but I believe it is a valid utterance nonetheless. I could be wrong >> though. >> -Dylan > > > You've got it backwards. UI attach to the preceding word or structure; if > it appears at the beginning it applies to the whole bridi (See Reference > Grammar 13:1 ). If, in speaking, you > don't realize you wish to express a full-bridi UI until you've already > started, you can close the bridi with {vau} & then add the UI to similar > effect. > > The question word for UI is {pei}, so {.ui pei} translates loosely to "Are > you happy?" (See Reference Grammar 13:10 > .) > > mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan > ------=_Part_132194_11177663.1229040052221 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Ah, I did have it backwards. And .ui pei is definitely the right way to ask that question. However, is "xu .uidai" still a valid utterance? And if so, what does it mean?
-Dylan


On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM, pyrosim <pyrosim@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it legitimate to use attitudinals as regular words?  ie. is the following lojban sentence acceptable?
>
> xu do .ui
>
> or does this just mean \"are you <I\'m happy>\"?
>
> - Luke Bergen
 
My naive thought would be that the .ui would bond to the whole
sentence and the xu would bond to the do, leaving \"How do you feel
about yourself? :)\" I think the sentence you are looking for is \"xu
.ui dai\". Attitudinals are usually attributed to the speaker, unless
otherwise specified (using dai). That sentence doesn\'t have a selbri,
but I believe it is a valid utterance nonetheless. I could be wrong
though.
-Dylan

You've got it backwards. UI attach to the preceding word or structure; if it appears at the beginning it applies to the whole bridi (See Reference Grammar 13:1). If, in speaking, you don't realize you wish to express a full-bridi UI until you've already started, you can close the bridi with {vau} & then add the UI to similar effect.

The question word for UI is {pei}, so {.ui pei} translates loosely to "Are you happy?" (See Reference Grammar 13:10.)

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

------=_Part_132194_11177663.1229040052221--