From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD53tDnBBoEFHZ_Lw@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 29 14:56:13 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNCdg-0007Kc-99; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:56:08 -0800 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17sf2238654wwb.16 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:57 -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=QocMKiNSfyaYxl/INxNkLdR7VToOa6zMXSdPl+/EZFQ=; b=tr+rNpwRBQnl5kn4+GkoHbcvETRs4hGjHNZB+y6A1IR+WIlj7x2aLTZxv3n6aVHAo/ oF1wfqdphK8V1iAGwdGoqWcLU+OSfgxpyGZm4fMiRsxfBko531/gea3EyTSXeDE3eF1U X/gwoffM2a7YqP1VMspWzBJI4yt2eX3WyKIwQ= 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=JrUwhJrLGA125O3DB93fTc5T6W4MP0Ph0B9vxVnVkSW4AGzAREyGikPJFP8zR8ApRy IZsBdi9w0VabdoyRxIQ2ruLQ25IsQSl77Kh/lHLLTlJW4D23UJnDFc9yXOkT0viw4xrc H2wTABbOvjUki/dRLY5DkiulFUd1Hq9Y8TEac= Received: by 10.216.240.140 with SMTP id e12mr542296wer.15.1291071353705; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:53 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.246.70 with SMTP id p48ls2589328wer.1.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.37.133 with SMTP id y5mr364749wea.14.1291071352553; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.37.133 with SMTP id y5mr364748wea.14.1291071352532; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f173.google.com (mail-wy0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n18si642772wej.6.2010.11.29.14.55.51; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.173; Received: by mail-wy0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 36so4890781wyg.4 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.127.134 with SMTP id g6mr6769139wbs.54.1291071351290; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.16 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <306693.13766.qm@web81301.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> <306693.13766.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:55:50 -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 74.125.82.173 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 12:06 PM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > Well, since I made none of the claims or inferences mentioned here, I don= 't > entirely see the relevance of these remarks (although I agree that the mo= ves are > made more often than they should be -- and not just in Lojban). Sometimes you seem to pick a property of some particular UI and generalize it indiscriminately to all UIs. Like calling them "grunts". Yes, some UIs can be likened in some respects to grunts, but others have nothing in common with them. >=A0Yes, UI is used > for several other purposes than expressing emotions and mark a variety of= speech > acts. Right. >=A0I have not yet found a useful way of expressing that explicitly but hav= e > several times warned that I use the "express emotion" line as a shorthand= for a > longer description. =A0If you want to insist that I list all the things o= ut, I > will beut it gets tedious for me and boring for you (and you will probabl= y dig > up some cases I missed, anyhow). I don't insist that you do anything, but if you ever feel like making that list, it might be quite interesting. I don't think I would find it boring. > =A0On the flip[ side, of course other things can > be used to express emotions: I suppose that 'mi gleki', for example, can = be used > as expressively as "I'm happy", Yes. >though with the same potential for > misunderstanding -- which 'ui' doesn't have. I'm not sure what kind of misunderstanding you have in mind. > As for inference 3, I don't quite > know what you mean by "communicate". =A0In something like a normal meanin= g, just > about every language act communicates something or other, as do most > non-linguistic acts. I was contrasting the merely expressive function of language, where an interlocutor is irrelevant, with its communicative function, where an interlocutor or intended audience is crucial. >=A0Presumably, 'ui' communicates, among other things, that > the speaker is happy. In its core use, the speaker just expresses happiness when saying "ui". If that happens to communicate their happiness, it is as a side effect. But that's "ui", not UI, just in case someone wants to make the usual jump of "whatever we say of 'ui' goes for all of UI". For many UIs, an audience is crucial or at least highly relevant. >=A0But it does not state that. =A0It is neither true nor > false. =A0It is evidence but not a claim. =A0And so on. =A0Do you mean so= mething more > by "communicate"? I hope I made myself a little more clear now. > While I have a certain amount of difficulty with 'pei', I can see it usef= ulness, > both as another greeting and in more intense examination. =A0I can't fath= om > 'uipei', however, except as an idiom of a particularly illogical sort. "uipei" is not the best choice to examine "pei", just because "ui" is mainly purely expressive, and asking someone to provide a purely expressive locution is slightly silly. (But still meaningful.) But don't go and conlude from that that "UIpei" in general is silly. "UIpei" does not mean, as you seem to think, that the speaker says UI and then, independently, asks the listener to provide some kind of comment on that. "pei" modifies the meaning of the preceding word, in such a way that "UIpei" is a question. "Uipei" has a perfectly compositional meaning, but it is not the meaning of UI and then separately the meaning of "pei". (The same can be said of "UInai" for example. When you say "UInai" you are not expressing something with UI, and then somehow reversing what you just expressed. You are expressing something with "UInai".) UIpei asks the listener to answer with "UI" or "UInai". It's really quite simple, and it seems to me you are just trying hard to not understand. >=A0Come to > that, I have some trouble with your standard responses, which seem not to= be > responsive at all -- well, 'nai' is OK, but 'ja'ai', aside from being an > innovations whose rationale is obscure, seems to be simply incoherent and= have > nothing to do with what 'pei' is presumably asking (of course, the incohe= rence > may conceal a useful kernel). "UI ja'ai" is equivalent to UI by itself, I'm quite sure you understood that perfectly. It is the identity modifier in the CAI/NAI series, if you prefer to put it that way. > For the rest, is "ha ha" a legitimate answer to > "How are you feeling?" Maybe so, though in a rather extended sense. And o= f > course 'ie' is a perfectly good answer to 'xu do tugni' since that is in = fact > its main purpose, as a "Yes" for a particular sort of question. "ie" makes more sense in response to a statement than to a question, because a question makes no claim with which to agree or disagree. Pragmatically, since the question as posed is about agreement, answering "ie" would probably be understood, but strictly speaking there is no claim advanced with which to agree or disagree. > But whether > 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not thereby decided; it means "Yes, i= nnit" > and it might be possible to extract from that something like a real quest= ion, > but the path is tortuous -- unless you just say it's an idiom, so don't e= xpect > it to be logical. No, you are simply wrong about how "pei" works. It is perfectly compositional, and it forms a compound with the preceding UI that asks the listener to answer with "ie[ja'ai]" or "ienai" (or any of the other variants). > The "grunts and wheezes" line was hyperbole, as you well know, =A0But the= point > there was that if it takes a real question (declarative statement with an > interrogative particle of some sort) to locate3 one in physical space, wh= y > shouldn't it take one to locate one in emotional space. Because we happen to have words to express one's location in emotional space but we just don't happen to have any to express one's location in physical space (other than propositionally). >=A0I don't think much of > the analogy, but it was Bergen's line not mine. =A0But, along that same p= aragraph, > just what other purposes does 'ui' have than expressing happiness? "ui" is for expressing happiness. UI has lots and lots of different purposes besides expressing emotions. UI is not only, maybe not even mainly, for expressing emotions. > I have to admit that 'la'apei' makes more sense than 'uipei' and then sus= pect > that that sense carries over to other cases where it is relatively absurd= . =A0On > the other hand, the absurdity of 'uipei' makes me skeptical about 'la'ape= i' as > well. See? You think that some property of one UI somehow must generalize to all UIs. But there's no reason to expect that, because other than their common syntax, there's not that much that can be said of all of them in general. >=A0But. as I have said. we have an idiom here and though they are illogica= l, No we don't. "UIpei" is no more idiomatic than "UInai" or "UIcu'i", or many other compounds with compositional meaning. Even less so, since UInai is sometimes hard to figure, but UIpei is always transparent. > we seem to be content to allow them, so let them ride (but they are anoth= er mark > against the "logical language" claim, even in the official restricted ver= sion). Logic doesn't really enter into it, but "pei" is certainly nice and regular= . 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.