From lojban+bncCJGY6cDlFhCN2MrkBBoEk5_tzg@googlegroups.com Thu Sep 16 16:45:42 2010 Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OwO8r-0001Bu-67; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:42 -0700 Received: by bwz4 with SMTP id 4sf330337bwz.16 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:23 -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=P1qTfesyHPJXos8RY3Svc2KuLt3Ty52FIh5sw16MiaA=; b=trw3NjVzJrJFuWl0gPIU9YdUJWkTYFgi+vtLL37J3wI/j8GBJooaGCWeAcnrdIna4d aQ5XSYdHyJK0adJYzxOkxuFW/IzM/1baHIDY8IsQJrPsngra0h66D1usGjEjM55pUtEX P6OJKXZmOjwg/3A7Uq4z7nAau3rN7THNVzopk= 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=YCsv+g498x6EXX7gcalpLg277zAUd8leYLDE7ye5nsRJl3cTFfdEqykIJJi4zQYXfN oo1KMfoBgYlLm+E5gTXR2hrhi87ZlmjjdzxkuRAO7hzZtoc0NZLwKOY2Xu9+SFGmXtXB OOsN3JB86iyjCDpBie0DU1p5UHRX0y2VzKPFg= Received: by 10.223.54.79 with SMTP id p15mr105797fag.12.1284680717354; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.137.193 with SMTP id x1ls1319505bkt.0.p; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.127.65 with SMTP id f1mr253307bks.17.1284680716557; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.127.65 with SMTP id f1mr253306bks.17.1284680716458; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f47.google.com (mail-bw0-f47.google.com [209.85.214.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id z17si1939988bkb.3.2010.09.16.16.45.15; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.47; Received: by mail-bw0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 2so2314628bwz.6 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.124.197 with SMTP id v5mr1785066far.68.1284680715129; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:45:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.125.77 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:44:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <951099.98874.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <729457.38076.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8DF3A5.3040702@lojban.org> <364433.94354.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <575987.94184.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <951099.98874.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Oren Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:44:55 -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 209.85.214.47 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=001636c5ba11acd26d0490690971 --001636c5ba11acd26d0490690971 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable coi rodo .i .e'u ko surla On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 19:35, John E Clifford wrote= : > This is hardly a linguistic subtlety, being a fundamental difference in > linguistic behavior. On the other hand, it is hard to make reasonably > compelling > examples of this sort of thing, so the thing to do is surround with a whi= rl > of > text to point out exactly what is going on. Of course, it also happens > that > someone comes on something in a very inchoate fashion and it takes severa= l > passes through the critical mill to work out what it was they found. And > that > may well be the case here, though the final grind has yet to be done. An= d > the > earlier cases are just ever narrowing stabs at what they have, not to be > taken > into account as a later stage is reached, I hope this is true, but, afte= r > 35 > years, I tend to view any mucking about in UI with the hermeneutics of > suspicion, and the total ineptness of even your attempt at number one > leaves > that suspicion only slightly allayed. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jorge Llamb=EDas > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 5:36:14 PM > Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:14 PM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > And for 1? These are not, after all, translations but rather part of a= n > effort > > to teach and justify a new usage. One expects such to be fdone with > relevant > > care. > > Not everyone is consciously aware of such linguistic subtleties, so > the fault was not necessarily carelessness. > > > As you not, acceptable translations that make the point are easily come > > by (I am a little uncertain about 'yay for Mom', which doesn't seems mo= re > to > > applaud than co-rejoice, but that is aesthetics). As I said, 1 does no= t > >obvious > > lends itself to even these explanations, > > Which is why one has to resort to a not-fully-adequate paraphrase. How > would you translate "uu" in English? Given that, we can probably find > some better way to translate "uu dai" and "uu da'oi ...". Maybe > something like: > > la .selkik. .uu da'oi .lindar. cu co'e > "Selkik ('poor thing!' would say Lindar) does something." > > but that's not very idiomatic and still doesn't get it quite right. > Maybe English is just incapable of doing it so succintly as Lojban in > this case. That's a translation problem, not a problem with the > Lojban. > > > but does -- like the rest of them, fit > > in with a propositional interpretation, which is also fairly regularly > >mentioned > > subliminally (it is hard to talk overtly about some things in Lojspeak) > in > > earlier comments in this ane earlier related topic. > > If your point is that Lojbanists are not always accomplished linguists, I > agree. > > If your point is that "da'oi" is somehow against the spirit of Lojban, > I disagree. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > 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=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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 Oren Robinson (315) 569-2888 102 Morrison Ave Somerville, MA 02144 --=20 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. --001636c5ba11acd26d0490690971 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
coi rodo .i .e'u ko surla

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 19:35, John E Clifford <= kali9putra@yahoo.com>= wrote:
This is hardly a linguistic subtlety, being= a fundamental difference in
linguistic behavior. On the other hand, it is hard to make reasonably compe= lling
examples of this sort of thing, so the thing to do is surround with a whirl= of
text to point out exactly what is going on. =A0Of course, it also happens t= hat
someone comes on something in a very inchoate fashion and it takes several<= br> passes through the critical mill to work out what it was they found. =A0And= that
may well be the case here, though the final grind has yet to be done. =A0An= d the
earlier cases are just ever narrowing stabs at what they have, not to be ta= ken
into account as a later stage is reached, =A0I hope this is true, but, afte= r 35
years, I tend to view any mucking about in UI with the hermeneutics of
suspicion, and the total ineptness of even your attempt at number one leave= s
that suspicion only slightly allayed.


----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com<= br>
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 5:36:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: other-centric UI

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Jo= hn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.= com> wrote:
> And for 1? =A0These are not, after all, translations but rather part o= f an
effort
> to teach and justify a new usage. =A0One expects such to be fdone with= relevant
> care.

Not everyone is consciously aware of such linguistic subtleties, so
the fault was not necessarily carelessness.

> As you not, acceptable translations that make the point are easily com= e
> by (I am a little uncertain about 'yay for Mom', which doesn&#= 39;t seems more to
> applaud than co-rejoice, but that is aesthetics). =A0As I said, 1 does= not
>obvious
> lends itself to even these explanations,

Which is why one has to resort to a not-fully-adequate paraphrase. How
would you translate "uu" in English? Given that, we can probably = find
some better way to translate "uu dai" and "uu da'oi ...&= quot;. Maybe
something like:

=A0la .selkik. .uu da'oi .lindar. cu co'e
=A0"Selkik ('poor thing!' would say Lindar) does something.&q= uot;

but that's not very idiomatic and still doesn't get it quite right.=
Maybe English is just incapable of =A0doing it so succintly as Lojban in this case. That's a translation problem, not a problem with the
Lojban.

> but does -- like the rest of them, fit
> in with a propositional interpretation, which is also fairly regularly=
>mentioned
> subliminally (it is hard to talk overtly about some things in Lojspeak= ) in
> earlier comments in this ane earlier related topic.

If your point is that Lojbanists are not always accomplished linguists, I a= gree.

If your point is that "da'oi" is somehow against the spirit o= f Lojban,
I disagree.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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=3Den.




--
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.




--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Somerville, MA 02144

--
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.
--001636c5ba11acd26d0490690971--