Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:45125) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RPeoU-0004Sq-Dw; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:58 -0800 Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf5102661bka.16 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=P260y66WV9X4HDN9Pj99mZa1Q9R4PogHtgjpy3sVq+U=; b=tBsDQ3Pi0FTg9g7jrAPcl831Fu5ReyMpV91LzXZCZNdJzHRvtynPCwHaILIZBVkzmn MtqF7L/1ZEPKCqnwLXU4EuLgvTt0yXwq+u39vzla/LuCkGQu2UkNhoVHMRPVjlEPO9cp WJfJLr8riKdZKZnqeM9jtU2VlseiRVrRDC0c4= Received: by 10.204.154.78 with SMTP id n14mr924119bkw.31.1321208983544; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:43 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.205.80.78 with SMTP id zt14ls18124914bkb.1.gmail; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.127.148 with SMTP id ha20mr174502bkc.6.1321208982499; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.127.148 with SMTP id ha20mr174501bkc.6.1321208982472; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f47.google.com (mail-bw0-f47.google.com [209.85.214.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q19si1817110bks.3.2011.11.13.10.29.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.47; Received: by bkbzs2 with SMTP id zs2so5872548bkb.20 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.138.17 with SMTP id iq17mr8481598bkc.118.1321208982224; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.41.68 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:29:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20111105115950.GJ8607@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <201111090819.17457.phma@phma.optus.nu> <20111109132326.GN19979@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:29:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] baby words, but general relevance: dai-like cmavo From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c15500f41ab04b1a1f057 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --0015174c15500f41ab04b1a1f057 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Craig Daniel > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Michael Turniansky > >> wrote: > >> > We seem to be in agreement here. Who wants in "au se'inai"? *I* > do. > >> > What's the reason for my want? Someone else. Who complains in "oi > >> > se'inai"? I do. What's the reason for my complaint? Someone else. > >> > Hence, > >> > "That fall you took hurt me!" Whereas "oi dai" to me only conveys "I > >> > see > >> > that YOU hurt". > >> > >> No, oidai expresses a feeling on the part of the speaker. That feeling > >> is one of empathetic pain, and implies that the speaker feels pain on > >> behalf of the listener (whether or not the listener actually feels any > >> pain). > >> > >> This is important, because the UI (other than xu) are strangely > >> non-declarative. There is a crucial difference between ".ui" and "mi > >> gleki". You might be lying about how you feel, so "mi gleki" is simply > >> false; ".ui" has no truth value, ever. It cannot be affirmed, obeyed, > >> or answered, as it is not semantically declarative, imperative, or > >> interrogative. Since I can very readily be mistaken about how you > >> feel, saying ".oi" on your behalf makes no sense - it's expressing > >> something that I have no way of knowing even exists, without allowing > >> you to dispute it. An empathetic feeling, on the other hand, is no > >> less real just because the person being empathized with feels > >> differently; that's the kind of feeling ".oidai" expresses. > >> > > But I never asserted that "oidai" declares or (as you use later), > > "asserts". I said it CONVEYS that meaning. > > In fact, now that I have just reread the lojban reference grammar, > that's > > EXACTLY the example they give. (13.10.9) and then goes on to say, "Both > > ``pei'' and ``dai'' represent exceptions to the normal rule that > > attitudinals reflect the speaker's attitude." > > > > I didn't THINK I was making this up. > > --gejyspa > > Hm, so it does. > > The ma'oste gives the following: "dai UI5 attitudinal modifier: > marks empathetic use of preceding attitudinal; shows another's > feelings" > > If this were a simple conflict between the Book and the ma'oste (as > with the syntax of "vo'a"), I'd say the Book ought to win, but the > book's example here is actually not self-consistent interpreted your > way - it glosses ".oiro'odai" as "[pain!] [physical] [empathy]", which > implies that the speaker is empathizing with the listener's pain > rather than merely referring to it, and proceeds to translate it more > idomatically as "Ouch! That must've hurt!" (which pe'i implies the > speaker feels something too, even though they're not physically > injured) right before it tells you it's not about the speaker's > attitude. It proceeds thence to example 13.10.10, empathizing with a > non-living object, which can *only* be about the speaker's empathetic > emotions and has nothing to do with an actual belief in the ship's > emotions, before giving the sentence you quoted. Nope. It's called anthropomorphizing. I'm sympathizing with the way I believe that item would feel, if it could feel pain. For example, were I of a sadistic bent, And I stepped on a snail, crushing it, I could reasonably cry out, "oiro'osaidai .i uisairo'e" corresponding roughly to English "[high squeaky voice] Oh, ow! [gloating voice] MWA-HAHA!" My mental state and the snail's do not correspond at all. --gejyspa -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --0015174c15500f41ab04b1a1f057 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at= 12:55 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Michael= Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> = wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Michael Turniansky
>> <mturniansky@gmail.com= > wrote:
>> > =A0 We seem to be in agreement here.=A0 Who=A0 wants in "= ;au se'inai"?=A0 *I* do.
>> > What's the reason for my want?=A0 Someone else.=A0 Who co= mplains in "oi
>> > se'inai"?=A0 I do.=A0 What's the reason for my c= omplaint?=A0 Someone else.
>> > Hence,
>> > "That fall you took hurt me!"=A0 Whereas "oi d= ai" to me only conveys "I
>> > see
>> > that YOU hurt".
>>
>> No, oidai expresses a feeling on the part of the speaker. That fee= ling
>> is one of empathetic pain, and implies that the speaker feels pain= on
>> behalf of the listener (whether or not the listener actually feels= any
>> pain).
>>
>> This is important, because the UI (other than xu) are strangely >> non-declarative. There is a crucial difference between ".ui&q= uot; and "mi
>> gleki". You might be lying about how you feel, so "mi gl= eki" is simply
>> false; ".ui" has no truth value, ever. It cannot be affi= rmed, obeyed,
>> or answered, as it is not semantically declarative, imperative, or=
>> interrogative. Since I can very readily be mistaken about how you<= br> >> feel, saying ".oi" on your behalf makes no sense - it= 9;s expressing
>> something that I have no way of knowing even exists, without allow= ing
>> you to dispute it. An empathetic feeling, on the other hand, is no=
>> less real just because the person being empathized with feels
>> differently; that's the kind of feeling ".oidai" exp= resses.
>>
> =A0 But I never asserted that "oidai" declares or (as you us= e later),
> "asserts". =A0I said it CONVEYS that meaning.
> =A0 In fact, now that I have just reread the lojban reference grammar,= that's
> EXACTLY the example they give. (13.10.9) and then goes on to say,=A0&q= uot;Both
> ``pei'' and ``dai'' represent exceptions to the normal= rule that
> attitudinals reflect the speaker's attitude."
>
> =A0 I didn't THINK I was making this up.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa

Hm, so it does.

The ma'oste gives the following: "dai =A0UI5 =A0attitudinal modifi= er:
marks empathetic use of preceding attitudinal; shows another's
feelings"

If this were a simple conflict between the Book and the ma'oste (as
with the syntax of "vo'a"), I'd say the Book ought to win= , but the
book's example here is actually not self-consistent interpreted your way - it glosses ".oiro'odai" as "[pain!] [physical] [em= pathy]", which
implies that the speaker is empathizing with the listener's pain
rather than merely referring to it, and proceeds to translate it more
idomatically as "Ouch! That must've hurt!" (which pe'i im= plies the
speaker feels something too, even though they're not physically
injured) right before it tells you it's not about the speaker's
attitude. It proceeds thence to example 13.10.10, empathizing with a
non-living object, which can *only* be about the speaker's empathetic emotions and has nothing to do with an actual belief in the ship's
emotions, before giving the sentence you quoted.


=A0 Nope. It's called anthropomorphizing. =A0I'= ;m sympathizing with the way I believe that item would feel, if it could fe= el pain. =A0For example, were I of a sadistic bent, And I stepped on a snai= l, crushing it, I could reasonably cry out, "oiro'osaidai .i uisai= ro'e" corresponding roughly to English "[high squeaky voice] = Oh, ow! [gloating voice] MWA-HAHA!" =A0My mental state and the snail&#= 39;s do not correspond at all.
=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0015174c15500f41ab04b1a1f057--