From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDyyc7nBBoEATs7FA@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 29 05:05:08 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PN3Ph-00032U-06; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:05:07 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf3626493wyb.16 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:54 -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=FAeWcsYV9v370vJQEhrtw4p1VfFMWzH5qmsPN4qL9Ds=; b=dfnP6MuqoKqHhZvJsfcYTKplDVNZneSmgrunBemdBNKfT5LQA9voo2Bcnzfi8YzxUy xX7QDRYkBxqm70TUYD52TR2dXkSviv5gwGI/7t6Fzk0det7tKOxv2/PQRvbN/4gJdERc OID5M5hgvdja1l7zcF3YNiAJSuX5/bVGEtfaU= 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=aV3X09GQ/xyHf+7On5kJ8N00//NpzrsmfSZ44f7ACKciIPlA/Zx1OujLd7LVMQSJrF gCet5gEib+fbJO4iuiM+KKF+jHEbwI+S0fbjRDPuEWOugF7u6MQe4zLvwKxPX5w+zkFy kn3eJvd82VWcg+YZPGkiHwqVZFPV3pYeKH4qY= Received: by 10.216.187.139 with SMTP id y11mr45793wem.20.1291035890611; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.41.197 with SMTP id p5ls2087395wbe.1.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.129.147 with SMTP id o19mr269890wbs.21.1291035889210; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.129.147 with SMTP id o19mr269889wbs.21.1291035889145; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k2si529192wbc.3.2010.11.29.05.04.48; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.174; Received: by mail-wy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 28so4540437wyb.33 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.134.142 with SMTP id j14mr5908439wbt.228.1291035887294; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.16 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:04:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <906301.34622.qm@web81302.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> <906301.34622.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:04:46 -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 74.125.82.174 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 Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > The point keeps being that what you are doing is seeking information not = an > expression of some sentiment, emotion, or what have you. You keep thinking of UI as things used to express a sentiment, emotion or what have you, but UIs are not *just* that. True observation: some UIs are most often used to express an emotion. Invalid inference #1: Every UI is always used to express an emotion and for nothing else. Invalid inference #2: Only UIs can be used to express an emotion. It is strange that in the Lojban community, this jumping from Some X is Y to Every X is Y and Only X is Y is so frequent. Invalid inference #3: Since UIs are expressive, they cannot be communicative. If you want to communicate something, you need to use a proposition. >=A0The answer is, as you say, yes or no, and those are the answers > to factual questions, nothing to do with 'ui' or even 'a'o', so why > bring them into the question at all. The main answer to "pei" is "ja'ai" or "nai". For more nuanced answers, there are other members of CAI. And you can throw in other specifiers like the ro'V series for even more nuance. And others. >=A0The way to > ask whether you agree or not is 'xu do tugni' not 'iepei', which is somet= hing > like "You damned betcha , innit?" =A0You are asking about sommone's attit= ude and > you want a factual answer; therefore, you are asking a factual quest, a b= ridi > with 'xu' attached -- or with a question word at some point in it. "iepei" is a perfectly good way to ask whether someone agrees with something you are saying or not. >=A0That's how > you perform that speech act in a logical language. =A0This is not Neander= thal, > after all, where the conversation is entirely in grunts. UIs are not grunts. They are words with meanings, like all other words of the language. Some of them are most often used purely to express an emotion. Please don't jump from there to "each one of them can only be used to express an emotion". > Expressing a whatever need not come from the gut and may go through the b= rai, > but it is still a different act from stating a fact or asking a factual q= uestion > (any kind of question as far as I can see). Of course they are different speech acts. Indeed the function of some UIs is precisely to specify the kind of speech act you are performing. They are not all and always used for the same type of speech act. >=A0The reason for the myth is to drive > home tis fundamental point, which obviously needs some more driving. Unfortunately, that "fundamental point" is wrong, and driving it home only creates more confusion in an area where we already have too much of it. > 'la'a cai' expresses your confidence in the following statement being tru= e, less > than 'ju'o' more than 'la'a' alone, but it is a discursive, not a modal a= nd is > not false if the event is unlikely, as the modal case would be. Which has nothing to do with the fact that "la'apei" is a perfectly good way of asking for someone's confidence on something being the case. > It is grounds > for thinking that you believe the event likely (though not definitive gro= unds); > it is not grounds for thinking the event is likely, nor does it claim to = be (or > anything else for that matter). And "la'apei" is a perfectly reasonable question, with a potentially informative answer. It is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to be explicit about how certain they are of something. 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.