From lojban+bncCJGY6cDlFhD0prjkBBoEX9oKtQ@googlegroups.com Mon Sep 13 05:05:25 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ov7mj-0006VC-0H; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:25 -0700 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17sf711404fxm.16 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:14 -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:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=tX9dhaRR6s1zOSdMINdagJplQp5z25nkqIKIdj1rJoQ=; b=YBudpBuG+8muopTzJwZXalxRxkTMdtWOrPffse8l3xFud9MXVT5tOL1yBm3jcI90q4 NcTYbiSftfXBEmCI74lEHTeH2jslDK5qe8dVrS6AANE3zFLq2553gcN8OXPQT7j0232D OxLdn6/pO8ep1ewDbc+gsJ5e7dbwBNF5LQ1mU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=j/p21Ff4WSmLM291Zl11G0kU6h8I7qYDpXuoYEakFzYO4e8ZpeqBrG1hEGu0nXgIlu c8ly29nwAdcFzowT1BYDN9DbXD36VhOxiJd+oxpyV9LFje/qFPws8i2l55D/VOW9fxiA FagKIoen+LKojOkR5HAbZIH3YKKSf+rmT4IiE= Received: by 10.223.30.151 with SMTP id u23mr103140fac.40.1284379508348; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.32.142 with SMTP id c14ls2530602fad.2.p; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.118.68 with SMTP id u4mr219681faq.16.1284379507537; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.118.68 with SMTP id u4mr219680faq.16.1284379507485; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (mail-fx0-f41.google.com [209.85.161.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b20si1673547fak.11.2010.09.13.05.05.06; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.41; Received: by fxm3 with SMTP id 3so3532873fxm.0 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.105.82 with SMTP id s18mr1936802fao.77.1284379506357; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:05:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.125.77 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:04:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0e7c05f9-d9c1-4e79-ad59-9dc6c2dcb7b6@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com> References: <729457.38076.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8DE806.4050107@lojban.org> <0e7c05f9-d9c1-4e79-ad59-9dc6c2dcb7b6@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com> From: Oren Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:04:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: get.oren@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=get.oren@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: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d385403bb808049022e8ce --0016e6d385403bb808049022e8ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 [snip] On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:07, Lindar wrote: > I think I've figured out what I mean. > {.ai} should be "intentionally", not "I intend to..." like an > evidential. > {.a'o} should be "hopefully", not "I hope..." like an evidential. ... This proposal, to me, seems like it would > satisfy everybody involved. I feel very strongly about this, and would > greatly appreciate constructive feedback. [/snip] Does this proposal speak to Luke's original question about a briefer way of expressing/asking about other's sentiments? I'm really hoping to hear something more after the { .aipei do zukte ma } suggestion stalled. This has been one perennial dissatisfaction for me as well. Would such "evidential UI" have special usage such that they can take a pro-sumti argument and express this things, but defaulting to the speaker? (all glosses are just possible senses; there's certainly no explicit "ba") { .a'o do dansu } Hopefully you'll dance. { .a'oi do dansu } I hope you'll dance. { ti .a'oi do dansu } This guy hopes you'll dance. { do .a'oi mo } What are you hoping [for/to do/to see]? { .a'oi mi mei ti } I'm a pirate. I'm guessing that in this proposal {.au'i } becomes "I want ..." which might answer the original question: { do mo } "Whatcha up to?" { do .au'i ma } "Whatcha want?" { do .au'i mo } "Whatcha wanna do?" ...This is all very not lojban. I look forward to being told this is all crazy. All I'm saying is that "brevity is the soul of language." -- 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. --0016e6d385403bb808049022e8ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[snip]

On Mon, Sep 13, = 2010 at 06:07, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I've figured out what I mean.
{.ai} should be "intentionally", not "I intend to..." l= ike an
evidential.
{.a'o} should be "hopefully", not "I hope..." like = an evidential.=A0
...=A0
This proposal, to me, seems like it would satisfy everybody involved. I feel very strongly about this, and would
greatly appreciate constructive feedback.

[= /snip]

Does this proposal speak to Luke's orig= inal question about a briefer way of expressing/asking about other's se= ntiments? I'm really hoping to hear something more after the { .aipei d= o zukte ma } suggestion stalled. This has been one perennial dissatisfactio= n for me as well.

Would such "evidential UI" have special usage= such that they can take a pro-sumti argument and express this things, but = defaulting to the speaker?

(all glosses are just p= ossible senses; there's certainly no explicit "ba")
{ .a'o do dansu } Hopefully you'll dance.=A0
{ .a= 9;oi do dansu }=A0I hope you'll dance.
{ ti .a'oi do dans= u }=A0This guy hopes you'll dance.
{ do .a'oi mo } What a= re you hoping [for/to do/to see]?
{ .a'oi mi mei ti } I'm a pirate.


I'm guessing that in this pro= posal {.au'i } becomes "I want ..." which might answer the or= iginal question:

{ do mo } "Whatcha up to?"
{ = do .au'i ma } "Whatcha want?"
{ do .au'i mo } &= quot;Whatcha wanna do?"

...This is all very n= ot lojban. I look forward to being told this is all crazy. All I'm sayi= ng is that "brevity is the soul of language."

--
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.
--0016e6d385403bb808049022e8ce--