Well, it depends on what you mean by information. = Someone bursting in saying 'ui' is evidence (maybe even decisive evid= ence) for his being in a certain emotional state. But it is not a cla= im that he is in that state; it is neither true nor false. But eviden= ce is information, just not (in this case) stated information. It doe= s, of course, make sense to ask about someone emotional state, and the way = to do that is ask "How is your emotional state?" or something like that. &n= bsp;There is, after all, no grunts and wheezes that ask where one is in thr= ee (or four or more) space, one asks "Where the fugawee?" Why should = the matter be different for emotional space?

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>To: lojban@googlegroups.c= om
Sent: Sun, November = 28, 2010 5:55:02 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
=
What do you mean? Of course UI contain information. They contai= n information regarding my emotional state. If I burst into a room an= d yell ".ui" then people will have been informed as to my emotional state. = ".uipei" asks the listener to inform [me|us] about their location in = the ".ui" dimension.

Is it any more ridiculous to ask for a persons loc= ation on an x, y, or z plane than it is to ask where they are on an emotion= al scale?

2010/11/28 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail= .com>

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7= :34 PM, John E Clifford <kali9pu= tra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 w= ay, since
> that is what we are asking about -- refine your expression.

I don't think that would be the usual case.

> But under these
> conditions what we are asking for in not actually an expression but in= formation,
> we want to know a fact. And that just isn't what UI (and UICAI) = are about.

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.

> If
> I stop and consider whether to say 'uicai' or 'uicu'i' or 'uinai' or d= ecide to
> stick with just 'ui' I am no longer expressing my happiness in any nat= ural sense
> of the word, but rather describing it.

The idea that UIs must somehow come directly from the gut and not pas= s
through the brain is one of those Lojbanic myths that have no reason
of being.

> If I burst in the room and say "uicai, I
> passed", then I am probably expressing my extreme happiness. If,= on the other
> hand, I stop to analyze my feelings and then say 'uicai' I am more lik= ely
> seeking to give information -- especially if I do it in answer to a qu= estion.
> And 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

--
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.google.com/group/lojba= n?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.