So, the question is how a word that expresses the speaker's em= otions comes to have a propositional function: How are you feeling on the h= appiness scale?.I assume one of the reasons for using this idiom is that th= is question is hard to formulate as a full sentence. The word for "ha= ppy" probably doesn't have a place for quantitative measure, nor are such m= easures easy to formulate and turning that all into a question raises extra= problems.-- all soluble, of course, but taking a moment's thought. So, her= e is a cute dodge; never mind it literally makes no sense (indeed, a mark o= f a good idiom). The other UICAI are expressions of MY emotion; this = is now suddenly of YOURS which, of course makes no sense. The problem= s seems to lie ultimately with 'pei' itself: it calls upon a person to express his emotion, but not as an expression of an emotion, rather as an = factual answer to a factual question -- which just isn't an expression's jo= b (again, an expression can be sincere or not, but it can't be true or fals= e). Of course, once we start looking at cmavo for sensibility, the task cou= ld be a very long one, so I'll leave 'pei' be as totally useless in the rea= l Logjam, but perhaps fitting into some illogical argot on the periphery.

From: Jonathan J= ones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To:= lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centri= c-.ui conversation

No it doesn't.

"pei - CAI - emotion ? - attitudinal: attitudinal que= stion; how do you feel about it? with what intensity?"

It "says" "Ho= w much happiness do YOU express?"

{pei} by itself would be asking about emotion in general, and can be answer= ed by, for examples, {.iinai}, {.aucu'i}, {.o'icai}, etc., whereas {.uipei}= is asking about happiness specifically, anything on the .ui scale is a sen= sical answer, but only that which lies on the .ui scale.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John E= Clifford <kal= i9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

But it "says" (not really) "How much happiness do I expre= ss?" You are saying that this is an idiom, an expression totally deta= ched from its base meanin in an illogical way and tucked into the grammar (= and semantics and pragmatics) of the logical language. Nice to have a= short expression for that, I suppose, since we have others for other conve= ntional greetings (and in that case, the 'paunai' is definitely called for)= . But wouldn't just 'pei' do as well -- or better -- and be shorter, = too?

<= b>From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 20= 10 12:40:13 PM

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

It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in other word= s, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener is.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, John E Cliffo= rd <kali9putra= @yahoo.com> wrote:

Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai', not a separate speech ac= t. 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 spea= ker's. The fact that the speakers asks about its intensity seems to r= equire that it is not , even if the question is rhetorical. If it wer= e an expression of the listener's emotions (which it cannot be, by definiti= on), then the complete complex speech act of asking a rhetorical question w= ould 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 actu= ally 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, th= e use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb elsewhere). It i= s an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling huzzah". If it mak= es 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 (t= he logical language, before all) is meant to be transparent (at least to th= e extent of having its opacities clarifiable by following a few, mainly log= ical, rules). So, this expression is not and should not be a part of = Lojban.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
<= span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">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 muc= h 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" <= kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:=
> Still not clear what the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this. >
>
>
>
> ________________________________> From: Luke Bergen <luke= abergen@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 hurt" migh= t become
> something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu". I suppose. It's just unfo= rtunate
> that there's this rich exclamation system that I can only = use to indicate my own
> emotional state. But I guess it makes sens= e 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, "C= raig Daniel" <craigbdaniel@g= mail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>&= gt; So long as empathy doesn't require that I feel the actual emotion mysel= f,
>>> I'm fine with that. I don't want to say .oidai and accidental= ly 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 empathizi= ng
>> with it!
>>
>> I'm sorta with JEC on this= one, in that UI should be expressing your
>> emotion, but if da'o= i 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 - somethin= g
>> semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent of d= ai
>> (although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Altho= ugh
>> if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of resettin= g the
>> referent of "do"?) Some seem to want it to mean "I believ= e 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 about th= e world,
>> not expressing your own feelings; statements of fact o= r belief like
>> that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cmavo<= br>>> 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 th= ough
>> nothing else does" is telling you that there's no good way= to say
>> "ooh, that must have hurt" in Lojban is just silly, bec= ause 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 interj= ection
>> about the *speaker's* emotion, and the rest of the sente= nce 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 anyt= hing 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<= br>>> specified-referent dai relative).
>>
>> Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for<= br>>> intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synonymous, a= nd
>> ueblah conveys something like "this is said/done with the in= tent 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-inten= t
>> cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easily s= ay "spaji
>> .ai" in the three syllables needed for any experiment= al cmavo not
>> starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji=
>> da'oi."
>>
>> - mi'e .kreig.
>> <= br>>> * John: by "oiing" in this context I mean "expressing pain thr= ough
>> the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it's an English
&= gt;> shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" rather than for "cortu."
>&= gt;
>> --
>> 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
>&g= t;http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.<= br>>>
>
> --
> 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.
> T= o 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 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@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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.