From lojban+bncCNTM-bHNDhDEwr7kBBoEvpjbLQ@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 14 09:23:05 2010 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OvYHI-0003P0-Ms; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:23:04 -0700 Received: by qwi4 with SMTP id 4sf7790675qwi.16 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:22:34 -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:received-spf:received:date:from:to:subject :in-reply-to:message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version :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=HdXfFVTJfmoQgDn/TVoeGdYlEV32oXOcQDHEGFSPQj8=; b=FzqQnYQHwFogXtQVfa/3GD4qJ24UN8+KW2+EwVut/naPvWNIb5nmJybXnQs7oDMpIR 3KblWShlrb3mB8Z2sMoZVK8nct/6pXeI4h0IpuksP2E2lqf9+5rXoN8tEnbrfneVGTeB zJJ09tXO/5iaLL//zgokeelWCDzk8z4h2HaSk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to :message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version: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=UZbXkUexj/+2Jtpwmj3Jxo6FV/VdmuM8qsgGqiylE242TvOF9WoTphlypVk5Z/9Y6C zdAsPK9ESyJvjX0KvSI0f/URsCnHFF0xZrp1RX2whQmkV5jefQmDciVl368vf7SIQQ4O qU9T7T02rTFZb3lxYh2oo4UqZdosyn+U6n670= Received: by 10.224.64.203 with SMTP id f11mr16972qai.34.1284481348209; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.100.138 with SMTP id y10ls38556qan.7.p; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.3.12 with SMTP id 12mr13245qal.16.1284481347437; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.176.11 with SMTP id bc11mr7997ibb.13.1284476909553; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.176.11 with SMTP id bc11mr7996ibb.13.1284476909528; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cec.wustl.edu (express.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.16]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id db12si186778ibb.5.2010.09.14.08.08.29; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 128.252.21.16 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of adam@pubcrawler.org) client-ip=128.252.21.16; Received: from grid.cec.wustl.edu (grid.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.20.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD451E8058; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:08:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:08:29 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI In-Reply-To: <0e7c05f9-d9c1-4e79-ad59-9dc6c2dcb7b6@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: References: <729457.38076.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8DE806.4050107@lojban.org> <0e7c05f9-d9c1-4e79-ad59-9dc6c2dcb7b6@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: adam@pubcrawler.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 128.252.21.16 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of adam@pubcrawler.org) smtp.mail=adam@pubcrawler.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 I've given this some thought, and here is how I have come to peace with irrealis. In my view, bridi are not necessarily assertions. Instead (as is said over and over in introductory materials), they represent relationship among entities. There are many, many different reasons why one would talk about such a relationship, so while any stated bridi is referencing a (potential) state of the world, the UI attached show how that state interacts with the mind of the speaker. Some states of mind are more common for states of the world that are assumed not to presently be true (hope, for instance), and these are typically considered irrealis. But I can feel hopeful about things that have happened (or may have happened, but I don't know that yet), and I can feel sad about things that won't happen. Some UI, like {da'i}, very *strongly* indicate conterfactuality ("the speaker believes that this is *not* the case"), and some are strongly realis ({ju'a}, which is often considered the default if there isn't a context to imply something else). That said, then, there is not reason that {.ai mi klama} can't be interpreted as being similar to an English "I intend to go". Specifically, it invokes the relationship of me going (to an unspecified location, from an unspecified location, via an unspecified route, using an unspecified method of transportation) and says of that state of affairs that my mental state toward it is one of intent. Since *usually* intent is reserved for things that haven't happened, then under most circumstances it's "I intend to go", but it could also be "I went intentionally", or any of the other dozens of combinations of tense, number, aspect, and counterfactuality that context may present. You can be very specific about all of them if you want to, and nothing is stopping you from using {.i mi pacna lo da'i nu mi citka} or {.i mi citka gi'e cinmo lo ka pacna} if you want to be very specific about what is happening and who is feeling what, but most of the time, you don't. In summary, all attitudinals are irrealis. Some are more irrealis than others. I don't particularly care what goes in what numbered categories (UI1 vs UI2, etc), but I will *strongly* oppose an attempt to redefine existing words with new, explicitly realis meanings, when there is no need. On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, 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. > > -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Red meat is NOT bad for you. Now, blue-green meat, that's REALLY BAD for you. --Tommy Smothers -- 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.