Message-Id: <9207081306.AA25354@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Wed, 8 Jul 1992 03:06:52 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab>
Subject:      Re: Wallops #8
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO

On interpretation of UI+pei.

pei standing alone asked "how to you feel about ..." - it is a generic
attitudinal question.  But the range of attitudes is so great that it is too
vague for some usages.  I might ask the question about a book that you read,
expecting an indication of like/dislike or something at least suggesting
those lines, but the respondent might merely answer ".uo" which conveys
only that he has finished reading it.

THus it was adopted that UI+pei asks "How do you feel on this specific
UI scale?"  For example, re the book. "cukta .i'epei" means "Book! (Do you
approve or disapprove, or somewhere in between.)

The answer to such a question should normally be one of the scalar labels for
that UI
.i'ecai
.i'esai
.i'eru'e
.i'ecu'i (neutral)
.i'enairu'e
.i'enaisai
.i'enaicai

Occassionaly, if the respondent has no particular feeling on the scale in
question, or mixed feelings, he will at least respond with something
related to the question (Presuming he's being cooperative), such as ".ui",
or ".a'u" which in this context I might interpret as - "I don't know
if its really that good, but I'm happy to have read it, or "It was an
interesting book", both with the subtext of mixed emotions on the approval s
scale.

lojbab