From lojban+bncCN673cmqFBDd5rfkBBoEsIScNg@googlegroups.com Mon Sep 13 02:48:34 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ov5eE-0006SF-31; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:33 -0700 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9sf3909621gxk.16 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:19 -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:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :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=S/Zs9DEUpXPccbX8o8vHTXxpbas4DyZTzaTBobDjPT4=; b=0x3IyvN8aD9RSlHf9ajoRla0VjExe8z9Ip1SAG+y2x44r3ga9k7Bh/yBF5PWcAvu/u tanvlyeHt0e2xT5osd6yOEfG5SsW6Eupj0KsatSKF7YtIizxQs0GnFkheC1s8ZnLApSB iQ5n3D+d4UbSBnJN0OKKFIMiCi6QaW4EfeTa0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to: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=F3h0rWHULzRW31WBlhZOTlYV/+VKvS3tOqySftu1CfPGTzRkPP8cydCueuYajbSPUR kY+A2hn1/6LGY5mzsYw+WXFE9ArGl3uxeZADKck+WAQNvUbJRUZ19ncqogk+BDN2Zo62 92MnezoiK3H98ZYXKJpBQkpPLeHGZRjmRdw1k= Received: by 10.91.216.3 with SMTP id t3mr116216agq.38.1284371293857; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.27.13 with SMTP id a13ls3963323yba.6.p; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.58.12 with SMTP id g12mr43723yba.50.1284371293186; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.58.12 with SMTP id g12mr43722yba.50.1284371293152; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net (eastrmmtao101.cox.net [68.230.240.7]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a6si3807160ybo.6.2010.09.13.02.48.12; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.7 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.7; Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100913094813.BEMO17186.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:13 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 69oC1f0063Xcbvq029oCjG; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:12 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Cpsp9XuSY13Uni36OgXCsheP7uKp19gQdVzN1WEXNos= c=1 sm=1 a=d6hN_chgPKUA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=XbPx4G6_VSKbWW0l8-EA:9 a=GVvXn1D8XIN_Sl2imklK8ukrW_IA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4C8DF3A5.3040702@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:49:25 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI References: <729457.38076.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.7 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Luke Bergen wrote: > I think you're not correct in saying that all UI must behave the same > way. The CLL describes two distinct kinds of UI (ignoring for the > moment evidentials, discursives, whatever ro'a and friends is, and a few > others I'm probably missing). The "pure emotional indicator" type > described in 13.2 (the kinds starting with 'u', 'o', and the second half > of those starting with 'i') and the "propositional attitude indicators" > type described in 13.3 (those starting with 'a', 'e', and the first half > of 'i'). > > I find it kind of strange that both of these groupings are in the same > selma'o (UI1). They are all in the same selma'o UI because they all have the same grammar. UI1, UI2, UI3 are not different selma'o. I added the numbers because there were simply so many UI that an alphabetical listing within a selma'o-sorted list was almost useless, and because we had in some cases explicitly added a group of UI as a related group (the evidentials), though sometimes it turned out that actual usage didn't match the original idea - some of the UI5s are like UI1s in actually expressing an emotion, while others, like "zo'o" can either be a personal expression of humor ("LOL") or a discursive (this isn't really serious; I'm being jocular) In the case of PA, originally there were separate selma'o with different grammar rules, but they were merged into one selma'o, with no official grammar for strings of "numbers" so that paka'osu'epire is grammatical even though I haven't a clue what it might mean. If, as some have proposed, the complex tense grammar were to be eliminated, or simplified, a whole bunch of selma'o might be merged into PU, and we would put numbers on each subgrouping. > This seems like an oversight. Not an oversight, but rather an after-the-fact realization that some members of UI behave differently semantically than others, and conveniently they happen to be in one part of the alphabet. For a couple of words added at the end, this realization informed word assignment, but for most, it was much less systematic. One thing to remember is that not only did we NOT have a semantic theory in those early days, I was opposed to even trying to create one (not to mention having no clue what a semantic theory would look like - I still don't - remember that I never had any formal training in linguistics or philosophy). I wanted semantics (as I understood the word) to emerge from actual usage patterns. And to some extent it did. In the early years we still made a few changes based on what was learned, but by 1991-1992, resistance to our continued fiddling had hardened and people were starting to turn away from the language because of it, which is why I later resisted xorlo, and still reflexively oppose other changes. Many of the VV members of UI were invented 50 years ago by JCB, and he never communicated any subgrouping. We preserved a few like "ua", "ui" and "ia" in re-engineering the language, and filled in the rest of the VVs trying to keep semantically similar words together, but without overtly identifying any groups. In 1989-1990, after having added evidentials and expanded the set of discursives, I did a major reanalysis of UI, adding in some suggested omissions and trying to more systematically group things, but without changing any more cmavo than necessary - that was when we first consciously realized that some groups of attitudinal UI conjured possible worlds, while others merely reacted to the real world, but this was 30 years after JCB had created the list with no clear system to the whole, and some different subgroupings in the parts (JCB's oa,oe,oo,ou more or less corresponded to eicai, eisai, eiru'e and eicu'i - by adding the scalars, we freed up words to allow expression of more different emotions) > They do seem to behave > differently from each other in a significant enough way as > to warrant distinct selma'o. Not grammatically, and selma'o are historically only about grammar-types (a extrapolation of "parts of speech" in English informal grammar - some nouns in English are abstract and some are concrete and there are significant differences in usage, but grammatically, they are both "nouns"). lojbab -- 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.