From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDtgs_nBBoEHKzMFA@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 29 07:08:40 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PN5LF-0003JV-9e; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:08:39 -0800 Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11sf3982368gyb.16 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:08:27 -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:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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=6pNz3XF1nEhR9Gp0nrXGyxumcYYpX8HS9q+aXX4+2X4=; b=q3BlBg8Wr0u9V3Zl+875tLvYyq7UsIQrNME02zZ0jCWdrXNSeKqhnf2UX2Ov94tW11 XnpTcv5XxBjDf6LBrVaeUiYE+p2D8uQXrpObS4ilt1kMzvppjJtzFqY5cQyZGwOPFhWx Aix6OgGqqV++7wXx+w4mwKHmuLAiG/LpriK3Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version: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=VW0DHhDiUYnGraMsvTppW3Gl6EiUCMGW3bj6C8YOWyD3cx4ObfElV5KI8+gH6uSNbz 5xElOdNbARKB40g/UXztAouXo59BjC1GAGx1r9+dFwreZBmgkahMUU8epJ/NtQfa6em4 tx3sADwgXu9RC6YZ6LETY8m/wwFflueJ1M69Y= Received: by 10.151.18.29 with SMTP id v29mr647299ybi.51.1291043181749; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:06:21 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.99.19 with SMTP id w19ls132187ybb.0.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.50.10 with SMTP id x10mr1596537ybx.4.1291043180912; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.50.10 with SMTP id x10mr1596536ybx.4.1291043180858; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.117]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id u10si861813yba.14.2010.11.29.07.06.19; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.117 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.117; Received: (qmail 19363 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Nov 2010 15:06:19 -0000 Message-ID: <306693.13766.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: PdtsCmQVM1kccz1WUDMsb_VEvYfrs8TDw3ddEk93z4tDFuL eryjECrsyl7owcdWYvwHTdzrBO5BV2fC4ua0Ydwe.cTD.iXO1hXhoOdRLmYy M0PxLCVeXJy5Vz1N65VJL4kx3CRB2a8Rny.y2uzxKn8FQRHuCnNXr7SiwW3a zBEymvqRs1bjyoSn5lH3tGSuSRYw_lH9Fo484sNbGYEIeCrccc79L7QrsHv1 KpGQMm8POkV_J2TlmHHrUcjbguemw4Vrs8QcfVeek.zUveUDKzEpq25Csqju f1EFlEbnntuK.C1_qxkjPy704Dpat.5Eeg6.yJtQKmW0_q0G7jHfh5BVsCH4 lxnDmQZiXME_zYt9gD0zXOZ1gfUL.jzmrWiYWtqMGQoEfMz41YuazxExT Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:06:19 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 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 07:06:19 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.117 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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 Well, since I made none of the claims or inferences mentioned here, I don't= =20 entirely see the relevance of these remarks (although I agree that the move= s are=20 made more often than they should be -- and not just in Lojban). Yes, UI is= used=20 for several other purposes than expressing emotions and mark a variety of s= peech=20 acts. I have not yet found a useful way of expressing that explicitly but = have=20 several times warned that I use the "express emotion" line as a shorthand f= or a=20 longer description. If you want to insist that I list all the things out, = I=20 will beut it gets tedious for me and boring for you (and you will probably = dig=20 up some cases I missed, anyhow). On the flip[ side, of course other things= can=20 be used to express emotions: I suppose that 'mi gleki', for example, can be= used=20 as expressively as "I'm happy", though with the same potential for=20 misunderstanding -- which 'ui' doesn't have. As for inference 3, I don't qu= ite=20 know what you mean by "communicate". In something like a normal meaning, j= ust=20 about every language act communicates something or other, as do most=20 non-linguistic acts. Presumably, 'ui' communicates, among other things, th= at=20 the speaker is happy. But it does not state that. It is neither true nor= =20 false. It is evidence but not a claim. And so on. Do you mean something = more=20 by "communicate"? While I have a certain amount of difficulty with 'pei', I can see it useful= ness,=20 both as another greeting and in more intense examination. I can't fathom= =20 'uipei', however, except as an idiom of a particularly illogical sort. Com= e to=20 that, I have some trouble with your standard responses, which seem not to b= e=20 responsive at all -- well, 'nai' is OK, but 'ja'ai', aside from being an=20 innovations whose rationale is obscure, seems to be simply incoherent and h= ave=20 nothing to do with what 'pei' is presumably asking (of course, the incohere= nce=20 may conceal a useful kernel). For the rest, is "ha ha" a legitimate answer= to=20 "How are you feeling?" Maybe so, though in a rather extended sense. And of= =20 course 'ie' is a perfectly good answer to 'xu do tugni' since that is in fa= ct=20 its main purpose, as a "Yes" for a particular sort of question. But whether= =20 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not thereby decided; it means "Yes, inn= it"=20 and it might be possible to extract from that something like a real questio= n,=20 but the path is tortuous -- unless you just say it's an idiom, so don't exp= ect=20 it to be logical. The "grunts and wheezes" line was hyperbole, as you well know, But the poi= nt=20 there was that if it takes a real question (declarative statement with an= =20 interrogative particle of some sort) to locate3 one in physical space, why= =20 shouldn't it take one to locate one in emotional space. I don't think much= of=20 the analogy, but it was Bergen's line not mine. But, along that same parag= raph,=20 just what other purposes does 'ui' have than expressing happiness? I have to admit that 'la'apei' makes more sense than 'uipei' and then suspe= ct=20 that that sense carries over to other cases where it is relatively absurd. = On=20 the other hand, the absurdity of 'uipei' makes me skeptical about 'la'apei'= as=20 well. But. as I have said. we have an idiom here and though they are illog= ical,=20 we seem to be content to allow them, so let them ride (but they are another= mark=20 against the "logical language" claim, even in the official restricted versi= on). From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 7:04:46 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation 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. > The 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. > The way to > ask whether you agree or not is 'xu do tugni' not 'iepei', which is somet= hing > like "You damned betcha , innit?" You are asking about sommone's attitud= e 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. > That's how > you perform that speech act in a logical language. This is not Neanderth= al, > 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= =20 >question > (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. > The 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,=20 >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=20 grounds); > it is not grounds for thinking the event is likely, nor does it claim to = be=20 (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= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. =20 --=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.