From lojban+bncCL-Ey5qiChDU3cnnBBoEW9O6bA@googlegroups.com Sun Nov 28 07:01:57 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PMilE-0007Ik-Kp; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:56 -0800 Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19sf3152107gxk.16 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:46 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wGtijCoG2iSaQ4zm8OtR90WOCDmyTTbnMbGMh/rZhRg=; b=IY0AhZwYGlMPxTEtMwCDsPHhdtanF8h3wXijPeKfqT3yImxsoF2Z6lJezEkfhZdrCG kH66FFt56Zf7DSXuNtMMRuELXJXF5ry6V+3zvs91he0gHLRQrCQ2daIXkFlT8xbd78W3 spTiPzCR6RlqPWk8P07AuMSvT6U+Ei8B5ggBs= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=d1RYD9TzxYy55GI7JX/J/Z2aBixVuUM6qNbmgHceIuHi+qt7u8GprJS8aZGOxvmWhR UXjS1GKjh+CuruO3BGIL8NhhWyXN+uUaKjBzebjiooA9Sc13VRc4KKgojgPsrfe7Lkri 2iQUki2LsEtNiY0PYdjBPa9W/tuaQJW4GRosI= Received: by 10.150.172.7 with SMTP id u7mr540421ybe.55.1290956500048; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:40 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.141.220 with SMTP id n28ls1359307ibu.0.p; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.36.140 with SMTP id t12mr1085094ibd.4.1290956499249; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.36.140 with SMTP id t12mr1085093ibd.4.1290956499203; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com (mail-iw0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m30si1084068ibu.6.2010.11.28.07.01.38; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.171; Received: by iwn9 with SMTP id 9so1876610iwn.2 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.223.198 with SMTP id il6mr1327033icb.409.1290956498070; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.180.133 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:01:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <659354.26852.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:01:38 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: Craig Daniel To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: craigbdaniel@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=craigbdaniel@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen wrote= : > So long as empathy doesn't require that I feel the actual emotion myself, > I'm fine with that.=A0 I don't want to say .oidai and accidentally imply = that > I .oi I always understood it as expressing empathy with the perceived oi, which can't possibly mean you feel oinai. There is absolutely a difference between recognizing pain in somebody else and empathizing with it! I'm sorta with JEC on this one, in that UI should be expressing your emotion, but if da'oi is really just about expressing your empathy with a specified person then it makes total sense to me. Some da'oi-advocates seem to indicate that this is what it is - something semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent of dai (although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Although if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of resetting the referent of "do"?) Some seem to want it to mean "I believe so-and-so feels the emotion indicated by saying whatever attitudinal (or, apparently from some example sentences, string of attitudinals - something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or after oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotional state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts about the world, not expressing your own feelings; statements of fact or belief like that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cmavo whose advocates can't agree on what it means, because that kind of imprecision is incompatible with what the non-experimental parts of the language strive to be (although they have sometimes been every bit as murky in their own way), so you can put me in the anti-da'oi bin until you guys make up your mind. The notion that saying "no, da'oi shouldn't work like that even though nothing else does" is telling you that there's no good way to say "ooh, that must have hurt" in Lojban is just silly, because nobody but you seems resistant to using the vast majority of the grammar in the way it was intended - the "ooh" is an English UIesque interjection about the *speaker's* emotion, and the rest of the sentence is a declarative sentence and really ought to be translated as one. The emotional gismu were created for a reason. That said (tangent warning!), I think there's quite a difference between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an unexpected party is much more akin to the former, and is not empathizing with anything at all. It is not a perceived emotion, but an intended one. If it is to be expressed with a UI at all, and I'm not sure it needs to be, it's definitely not one modified with dai (or da'oi, if that's a specified-referent dai relative). Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synonymous, and ueblah conveys something like "this is said/done with the intent that it will be surprising!" But such a hypothetical cmavo is not and should not be confused with dai. If da'oi is a semantically dai-like cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quickly get a corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-intent cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easily say "spaji .ai" in the three syllables needed for any experimental cmavo not starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji da'oi." - mi'e .kreig. * John: by "oiing" in this context I mean "expressing pain through the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it's an English shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" rather than for "cortu." --=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.