Still not clear what the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all= this.

From: Luke Bergen= <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To:= lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial o= ther-centric-.ui conversation

Ok, I see where you're going. So "oooo, that looked like it hurt" = might become something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu". I suppose.&nb= sp; It's just unfortunate that there's this rich exclamation system that I = can only use to indicate my own emotional state. But I guess it makes= sense and I should stop trying to shoehorn .ui and friends into shortcuts = for bridi that involve do.... or just say .uipeipaunai =3Dp

On Nov 28, 2010 10:01 AM, "Craig Daniel" <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wro= te:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So long as empathy doesn't require that I feel the actual emotion = myself,
>> I'm fine with that. I don't want to say .oidai an= d accidentally imply that
>> I .oi
>
> I always under= stood 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
&= gt; with it!
>
> I'm sorta with JEC on this one, in that UI sh= ould 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,
&= gt; apparently from some example sentences, string of attitudinals -
> something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or after<= br>> oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotional=
> state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts about the wor= ld,
> 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 bi= t
> as murky in their own way), so you can put me in the anti-da'oi b= in
> until you guys make up your mind.
>
> The notion that say= ing "no, da'oi shouldn't work like that even though
> nothing else do= es" 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 t= he
> way it was intended - the "ooh" is an English UIesque interjecti= on
> about the *speaker's* emotion, and the rest of the sentence is a
&g= t; declarative sentence and really ought to be translated as one. The
&g= t; emotional gismu were created for a reason.
>
> That said (t= angent 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<= br>> all. It is not a perceived emotion, but an intended one. If it is t= o
> 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
&= gt; 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
> c= orresponding 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<= br>> starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji<= br> > 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."
> > --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he 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@google= groups.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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.