From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCPxMrnBBoEF1dnuA@googlegroups.com Sun Nov 28 10:40:38 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PMmAk-0007jl-UO; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:37 -0800 Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17sf309923gwj.16 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:21 -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; bh=is+UslGywrlGxzRm2+OaJbVcItW0wdd7j4t5GBfdmSk=; b=FLHjlRKIFyCJmZ0kLuzDNg1A82ZJP++/YB9cV7xQvh+PCQZQpkj81tQjJoGYUM3W5V Gs0X8CDMKTpnQtTBwlRgkQIlkC2ifWL608Y1DxavmX8DCkD53jjGHepdWv0YG7K32KiN Yb/RyHz+Nt7CnT2XkP2CZY7XlZ6t7F+6iB4qE= 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=ZOaAfzRuYRXdW0mkhEbfuMoHQ68BaCvSys8grmVYLRn3QckLsjbw1L/jiOAMStgLHJ Am+w2iy7k88BqUUpvZvIe4rWUz8EoLMqewKG88M7zszvk2ajEMBByp7V5qKuJIsXFAPD i9Jjzl9LIpvTUH0iDwSR5hrRvgDZcDPn6rb3g= Received: by 10.100.239.5 with SMTP id m5mr116781anh.28.1290969615684; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:15 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.76.165 with SMTP id c37ls1644621ibk.3.p; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.33.71 with SMTP id g7mr553618ibd.6.1290969615036; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.33.71 with SMTP id g7mr553617ibd.6.1290969614969; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com (mail-iw0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m30si1152373ibu.2.2010.11.28.10.40.13; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; Received: by mail-iw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 3so5032195iwn.26 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.191.76 with SMTP id dl12mr4441225ibb.133.1290969613621; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.207.65 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:40:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <752705.36302.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <659354.26852.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <604115.16202.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <752705.36302.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:40:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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=0016364d32633c5a22049621491a --0016364d32633c5a22049621491a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in other words, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener is. On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai', not a separate speech > act. I was reading your phrase as three, not two. But whose 'ui' is it? > The fact that it is an expression seems to mean it is the speaker's. The > fact that the speakers asks about its intensity seems to require that it is > not , even if the question is rhetorical. If it were an expression of the > listener's emotions (which it cannot be, by definition), then the complete > complex speech act of asking a rhetorical question would indeed imply > something what your sentence says (reading it generously) or perhaps that I > don't really > care about your feelings at all. But I see no reason to think it actually > works that way nor that, even if it did, it would imply your putative > sentence. The problem with the sentence is just the root problem of this > whole issue, the use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb > elsewhere). It is an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling > huzzah". If it makes any sense at all, it means something like "feels like > wanting to say 'ui'" or so. But it is a totally opaque way of saying that > and Logjam (the logical language, before all) is meant to be transparent (at > least to the extent of having its opacities clarifiable by following a few, > mainly logical, rules). So, this expression is not and should not be a part > of Lojban. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Sun, November 28, 2010 9:58:56 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui > conversation > > It means exactly what it looks like. Pei asks the receiver how much or if > at all they are feeling the .ui and then the paunai says "but that wasn't a > question". In other words, I would read it as an exclamation of "I know to > what extent or whether or not you are feeling .ui". In other words, a cheap > way of expressing .ui for them, or rather expressing that I know the extent > to which they could accuratly express .ui (be it cai, cu'i or nai) > On Nov 28, 2010 10:41 AM, "John E Clifford" wrote: > > Still not clear what the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Luke Bergen > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:34:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-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. 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 =p > > On Nov 28, 2010 10:01 AM, "Craig Daniel" wrote: > >> 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. 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." > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --0016364d32633c5a22049621491a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in = other words, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener = is.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Joh= n E Clifford <= kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai'= ;, not a separate speech act.=A0 I was reading your phrase as three, not tw= o.=A0 But whose 'ui' is it?=A0 The fact that it is an expression se= ems to mean it is the speaker's.=A0 The fact that the speakers asks abo= ut its intensity seems to require that it is not , even if the question is = rhetorical.=A0 If it were an expression of the listener's emotions (whi= ch it cannot be, by definition), then the complete complex speech act of as= king a rhetorical question would indeed imply something what your sentence = says (reading it generously) or perhaps that I don't really
care about your feelings at all.=A0 But I see no reason to think it actuall= y works that way nor that, even if it did, it would imply your putative sen= tence.=A0 The problem with the sentence is just the root problem of this whole issue, th= e use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb elsewhere).=A0= It is an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling huzz= ah".=A0 If it makes any sense at all, it means something like "fe= els like wanting to say 'ui'" or so.=A0 But it is a totally op= aque way of saying that and Logjam (the logical language, before all) is me= ant to be transparent (at least to the extent of having its opacities clari= fiable by following a few, mainly logical, rules).=A0 So, this expression i= s not and should not be a part of Lojban.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.co= m>
To: lojban@googlegroups.c= om
Sent: Sun, November = 28, 2010 9:58:56 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial = other-centric-.ui conversation

It means exactly what it looks like.=A0 Pei asks the receiver how much o= r if at all they are feeling the .ui and then the paunai says "but tha= t wasn't a question".=A0 In other words, I would read it as an exc= lamation of "I know to what extent or whether or not you are feeling .= ui".=A0 In other words, a cheap way of expressing .ui for them, or rat= her expressing that I know the extent to which they could accuratly express= .ui (be it cai, cu'i or nai)

On Nov 28, 2010 10:41 AM, "John E Clifford&= quot; <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Still not clear wha= t the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________> From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> To: = lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:34:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] = Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
>
>
&= gt; Ok, I see where you're going. So "oooo, that looked like it h= urt" might become
> something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu". I suppose. It&#= 39;s just unfortunate
> that there's this rich exclamation syste= m that I can only use to indicate my own
> emotional state. But I g= uess 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, &q= uot;Craig Daniel" <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gma= il.com> wrote:
>>> So long as empathy doesn't requir= e that I feel the actual emotion myself,
>>> I'm fine with that. I don't want to say .oidai and ac= cidentally imply that
>>> I .oi
>>
>> I alwa= ys understood it as expressing empathy with the perceived oi,
>> w= hich can't possibly mean you feel oinai. There is absolutely a
>> difference between recognizing pain in somebody else and empathizi= ng
>> 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
&= gt;> da'oi-advocates seem to indicate that this is what it is - some= thing
>> semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent = of dai
>> (although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Altho= ugh
>> 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 -<= br>>> something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or= after
>> oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotiona= l
>> state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts abo= ut the world,
>> not expressing your own feelings; statements of f= act or belief like
>> that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cm= avo
>> whose advocates can't agree on what it means, because t= hat kind of
>> imprecision is incompatible with what the non-exper= imental 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 t= here's no good way to say
>> "ooh, that must have hurt&qu= ot; 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 UIes= que interjection
>> about the *speaker's* emotion, and the res= t 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<= br> >> between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an u= nexpected party is
>> much more akin to the former, and is not emp= athizing with anything at
>> all. It is not a perceived emotion, b= ut 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).
>> <= br> >> Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for<= br>>> intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synon= ymous, and
>> ueblah conveys something like "this is said/don= e 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 semantic= ally dai-like
>> cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quic= kly get a
>> corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-i= ntent
>> cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easi= ly 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 th= is context I mean "expressing pain through
>> the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it= 9;s an English
>> shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" = rather than for "cortu."
>>
>> --
>>= You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups =
>>"lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send e= mail to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from th= is group, send email to
>>lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>>http://gr= oups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>>
>
&= gt; --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to= lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, se= nd 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 Gro= ups "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 grou= p 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@googlegrou= ps.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 &= quot;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.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be = denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I= am your father. :D )

--
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.
--0016364d32633c5a22049621491a--