Well, I didn't say where the idiom strarted but, as I sus= pected. apparently it is with 'pei'. 'ie' is not an it, but a mark of= agreement. the "yes" of my version. 'pei' is Lord knows what,. but apparen= tly a question about some of the things that fall into UI and the like.&nbs= p; But what kind of a question i9s it? Not a "yes/no" clearly, so an identi= ty question. But it doesn't look like an identity question (or a yes/= no one, for that matter) and something that performs a linguistic function = that it is not designed to do is an idiom. 'pei' is in CAI (I assume), a ro= ugh marker of intensity of emotion (or whatever in the flotsam and jetsam o= f discursives). The only discursive here is one about MY agreement --= it can't be anyone else's. So, the whole means "I agree, how much?" or, presumably, "How much do I agree?" You don't come into it= at all. Now, I also think that using a CAT to ask a factual question= is a mistake, but that doesn't affect the confusion that is involved in th= is idiom (propagated, it seems, from the core).

From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
<= b>To: lojban@googlegroups.com=
Sent: Mon, November 29= , 2010 1:41:44 PM
Subject:<= /b> Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

No, by definition. No idiom needed. Must I quote the definition of {pe= i} again?

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

In the case of {.iepei}, the "it" is "agreement": {.iepei} =3D "how do= you feel about agreement? with what intensity?" =3D "Do you agree, and&nbs= p;with what intensity do you (dis)agree?"

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, John E Cliffor= d <kali9putra@= yahoo.com> wrote:

Idiomatically, yes; literally, more like what I said. And, as I = have noted, idioms are anti-logical in the appropriate sense, since there i= s no mechanical rule to get them back to there logical form.

From: Jonathan Jones <<= a rel=3D"nofollow" ymailto=3D"mailto:eyeonus@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" h= ref=3D"mailto:eyeonus@gmail.com">eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 29, 20= 10 1:10:39 PM=20

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

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:06 AM, John E Clifford= <kali9putra@y= ahoo.com> wrote:

But whether 'iepe= i' is a legitimate question is not thereby decided; it means "Yes, innit"

No, it means, "Do you agree, and with what intensity do you (dis)= agree?"

--
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 subscrib= ed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send emai= l 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://g= roups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle 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 htt= p://groups.google.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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.