From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDNxMvnBBoExjM7Kg@googlegroups.com Sun Nov 28 15:14:36 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PMqS1-0007ot-70; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:36 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf3101495wyb.16 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:26 -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=k1t2uVJdhcMvnJaz7vVyK0v1h935Yqof1NQ7SDzGjIU=; b=3yGH4rtmeWy9abUS5BuAqxfepvO9G9yM5rC6ugqXAkXhZolE/Jg/GpCrHG/7BUqf/T Fc5LYXgmhYALBEAdIDK/34Tra1Tbg+b1ngxwtd+EbsUYQ0cDchZV05Eo6KqhArz/TREy ZNI4XYdnbeGTqd1a0lQpi5xDCErNVOgDABUOE= 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=0S1jHVtzGNWnU/WzkzrPtkmKnNQ4YDs0sJMGr27fNDI9dQvIoaKmsFGy7pS98A3LUX KbR0tmq6DkuPt+iItRcjRMVGBQ5rQlzSj8+mxzWomnN4CZg0f525s/bHhno0dRPDAG4j MtGyL2zA22fl/2wmwKYl0JwCuOe45JzBv2yHU= Received: by 10.216.239.10 with SMTP id b10mr1156043wer.6.1290986061993; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:21 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.3.11 with SMTP id 11ls1873849wbl.3.p; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.63.14 with SMTP id z14mr234763wbh.5.1290986060714; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.63.14 with SMTP id z14mr234762wbh.5.1290986060674; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f179.google.com (mail-wy0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id w33si670327wbd.2.2010.11.28.15.14.19; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.179; Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so3836306wyi.38 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.155.15 with SMTP id q15mr5170700wbw.141.1290986059251; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.16 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:14:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <433664.89554.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> <822423.65423.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <605319.19000.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <433664.89554.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:14:19 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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 Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > But there is something odd about asking someone to express on a scale. Yes/no is the main gist of the question. How nuanced to make the answer is up to the one responding. For example: "iepei", "do you agree?". I don't really care for a nuanced answer, but you may feel compelled to make it nuanced anyway. > Presumably, he has already expressed his degree of happiness in some way,= since > that is what we are asking about -- refine your expression. I don't think that would be the usual case. >=A0But under these > conditions what we are asking for in not actually an expression but infor= mation, > we want to know a fact. =A0And that just isn't what UI (and UICAI) are ab= out. We are asking about someone's attitude: "iepei", "do you agree?", "e'apei", "may I?"(Do you give your permission?"), ".u'upei", "any regrets?", "je'epei", "OK?" and so on. >=A0If > I stop and consider whether to say 'uicai' or 'uicu'i' or 'uinai' or deci= de to > stick with just 'ui' I am no longer expressing my happiness in any natura= l sense > of the word, but rather describing it. The idea that UIs must somehow come directly from the gut and not pass through the brain is one of those Lojbanic myths that have no reason of being. >=A0If I burst in the room and say "uicai, I > passed", then I am probably expressing my extreme happiness. =A0If, on th= e other > hand, I stop to analyze my feelings and then say 'uicai' I am more likely > seeking to give information -- especially if I do it in answer to a quest= ion. > =A0And UICAI is not about giving information. "la'acai" means that I consider something extremely likely. It is certainly informative. I don't see why UIs can't contain any information. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.