From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDAz7jkBBoEVw6pTw@googlegroups.com Mon Sep 13 06:32:05 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ov98X-00075v-N1; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:32:05 -0700 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17sf722403fxm.16 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:50 -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:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=o0k1sY4kFBXEQ86xIESk+ABtiNu6QNHd26iRVeLTv6s=; b=Y7UICG78AKhccYl9pG7rNWVfsL2NEqxnsAOuNi1EIpV3x+ls02lQTpOb/jbFxzMjII hkuqxtimezVipMeMgGz5QqeB3aYGOs/nSYwAOiRkOn+e26GSOikT5gl/B4mhiSdcmU9D YcTTWNS/rRYfyG4t0XPQbPiZtC2LtO5kwQKLs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; 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:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=W22jNaSR1Fcc2ouR+aXipZ5EvTiLgF77jl3LSnEVoD3zrPcc3AVthaWkBSnUntAYHt CqIehPZWB5agya+V2JOB2dQuj9L8Qnh9umYgZHpZHFG0AvxXuXeXxyGJssgcBx9F05bm tCpoNVRK02xyVMy+GXW0nbPDD3gSyl0PNhwx8= Received: by 10.223.4.139 with SMTP id 11mr109152far.9.1284384704879; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.36.74 with SMTP id s10ls4182831bkd.1.p; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.48.210 with SMTP id s18mr128864bkf.13.1284384703705; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.48.210 with SMTP id s18mr128863bkf.13.1284384703291; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id z25si3318379bku.5.2010.09.13.06.31.42; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.44; Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so6076599bwz.17 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.99.131 with SMTP id u3mr3177330bkn.41.1284384701893; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.98.71 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:31:41 -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> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:31:41 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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=0016364580e4e94c7b0490241da9 --0016364580e4e94c7b0490241da9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ok. If you're going to invent a bunch of new cmavo then it seems like your definition of UI (the new definition) should be the one that gets assigned to the experimental space. Let {.ai mi klama} be "I intend/intended/am-intentionally to come[ing]" and let {.ai'i mi klama} be "I come [with intention]". It seems silly to change the existing definition of {.ai} to something that you think is right (and seemingly everybody else disagrees with) and moving the existing definition to the experimental place. Reductio ad absurdum: I want to be able to express the word "internet" but the existing word for "data" doesn't have the connotation that it is computer data spanning multiple computers. Ergo, I will re-assign the word {datni} to be "internet" and if anybody wants to use the (inferior) old meaning, they can use {datni'oi}. Ok, that was a silly example. But my point is, you're the one suggesting a new meaning. You take the experimental space. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 AM, 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. > > I said something earlier today after getting way too stressed out > about this (If you couldn't tell, I have some issues with social > interaction. I'm really working on it.) that embodied what I think is > the correct usage. It was something to the tune of {.i mi nitcu lo > nu .ai klama le zarci pu lo nu tervecnu lo bisyladru kei pu lo nu > jundi le skina be lo tcebarda remymi'i}. If we went with the > 'standard' definition, it would mean something like "I need to intend > to...", which isn't at all what I meant. I wanted to express that I > was doing everything intentionally/that I felt intent about it, which > is what UI1 should be. If people absolutely need that shortcut, then > why don't we make -evidentials- specifically for these definitions and > make all of UI1 what I've been saying it should be? > > .ai'i - I intend... > .a'oi - I hope... > .e'ai - I permit... > .e'oi - I request... > .e'ui - I suggest... > .ei'i - I should... > > I think this would be a fantastic addition to the language, and would > resolve the issue on both ends of the spectrum. For those that do not > like the irrealis UI, it would give them their intended meaning of UI > back. For those that specifically want these irrealis UI, we could > make them into evidentials, which provides a grammatical contiguity, > and makes updating reading material very easy as it would take a > simple find-and-replace. This proposal, to me, seems like it would > satisfy everybody involved. I feel very strongly about this, and would > greatly appreciate constructive feedback. > > I do very much apologise for any perceived 'attitude'. Also thank you > to Lojbab for explaining very well what he explained. That makes > sense, and gave me the idea for this proposal. I also would like to > apologise for beating a dead zombie horse. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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. --0016364580e4e94c7b0490241da9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok. =A0If you're going to invent a bunch of new cmavo then it seems lik= e your definition of UI (the new definition) should be the one that gets as= signed to the experimental space.

Let {.ai mi klama} be = "I intend/intended/am-intentionally to come[ing]" and let {.ai= 9;i mi klama} be "I come [with intention]". =A0It seems silly to = change the existing definition of {.ai} to something that you think is righ= t (and seemingly everybody else disagrees with) and moving the existing def= inition to the experimental place.

Reductio ad absurdum:=A0
I want to be able to= express the word "internet" but the existing word for "data= " doesn't have the connotation that it is computer data spanning m= ultiple computers. =A0Ergo, I will re-assign the word {datni} to be "i= nternet" and if anybody wants to use the (inferior) old meaning, they = can use {datni'oi}.

Ok, that was a silly example. =A0But my point is, you&#= 39;re the one suggesting a new meaning. =A0You take the experimental space.=

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Lindar = <lindartheb= ard@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.

I said something earlier today after getting way too stressed out
about this (If you couldn't tell, I have some issues with social
interaction. I'm really working on it.) that embodied what I think is the correct usage. It was something to the tune of {.i mi nitcu lo
nu .ai klama le zarci pu lo nu tervecnu lo bisyladru kei pu lo nu
jundi le skina be lo tcebarda remymi'i}. If we went with the
'standard' definition, it would mean something like "I need to= intend
to...", which isn't at all what I meant. I wanted to express that = I
was doing everything intentionally/that I felt intent about it, which
is what UI1 should be. If people absolutely need that shortcut, then
why don't we make -evidentials- specifically for these definitions and<= br> make all of UI1 what I've been saying it should be?

.ai'i - I intend...
.a'oi - I hope...
.e'ai - I permit...
.e'oi - I request...
.e'ui - I suggest...
.ei'i - I should...

I think this would be a fantastic addition to the language, and would
resolve the issue on both ends of the spectrum. For those that do not
like the irrealis UI, it would give them their intended meaning of UI
back. For those that specifically want these irrealis UI, we could
make them into evidentials, which provides a grammatical contiguity,
and makes updating reading material very easy as it would take a
simple find-and-replace. This proposal, to me, seems like it would
satisfy everybody involved. I feel very strongly about this, and would
greatly appreciate constructive feedback.

I do very much apologise for any perceived 'attitude'. Also thank y= ou
to Lojbab for explaining very well what he explained. That makes
sense, and gave me the idea for this proposal. I also would like to
apologise for beating a dead zombie horse.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--0016364580e4e94c7b0490241da9--