From lojban+bncCJGY6cDlFhDp1dHnBBoEulRppg@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 29 19:09:46 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNGb6-0004mV-8R; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:46 -0800 Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10sf1294787fxm.16 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:33 -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:received:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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; bh=nSoqHCx/Ho/pvy1vgeRQ96F2ChahsRK92PIB/vM8nwc=; b=ppsbppHDiljT0eUf6gYScHWvpuJQ9TiX/BiGTAc0fzp0eHRPFUreTsTcuGqoJ1P5lT LWYRaeISsFr9h4fkfUiuIHoTmQ/RJmSpZCsHsEdgSR2lw45w6PFWIcRug1QojQM5HXye yRH4Mj5QNkpd7aSodHFj5iElhqpn2N1xieSt0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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; b=UugKKYdQANktcBQzkoV36UqlKX4fAoGGxg/KqunPz05G5HS3G9oihL6lM98VoiZ+zG oaY3knN+pd1ERT4CUL8IsNuVEuEJiMH7FY25ubX0OWFnpp+ViydlW6VMbk4N4rzPyoBu JGk1D+PXlVG7ek6Y1wcEeMDqA1P1FVd1wl51k= Received: by 10.223.123.148 with SMTP id p20mr281146far.10.1291086569697; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:29 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.81.69 with SMTP id w5ls3021780bkk.2.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.8.20 with SMTP id f20mr744479bkf.21.1291086568285; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.8.20 with SMTP id f20mr744478bkf.21.1291086568213; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com (mail-fx0-f47.google.com [209.85.161.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n23si495176fam.9.2010.11.29.19.09.27; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.47; Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so3183906fxm.34 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.79.7 with SMTP id n7mr704802fak.33.1291086567070; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.105.207 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:09:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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> From: Oren Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:09:05 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: get.oren@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=get.oren@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b393ab865345de704963c84d1 --485b393ab865345de704963c84d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This lengthy conversation seems like a stark gap in interpretation of a moderately used word. Doesn't LLC have some like, official example sentence that explains the usage of a word? Isn't this what those cmavo definitions are for? It seems really silly to watch this go back and forth without any examples. 2010/11/29 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:06 PM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > 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 > moves 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. > > > Yes, UI is used > > for several other purposes than expressing emotions and mark a variety = of > speech > > acts. > > Right. > > > I 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 shortha= nd > for a > > longer description. If you want to insist that I list all the things > out, I > > will beut it gets tedious for me and boring for you (and you will > probably 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. > > > On the flip[ side, of course other things can > > be used to express emotions: I suppose that 'mi gleki', for example, ca= n > 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". In 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. > > > Presumably, '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. > > > But it does not state that. It is neither true nor > > false. It is evidence but not a claim. And so on. Do you mean > something 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 > usefulness, > > both as another greeting and in more intense examination. I 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. > > > Come 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 a= n > > innovations whose rationale is obscure, seems to be simply incoherent a= nd > have > > nothing to do with what 'pei' is presumably asking (of course, the > incoherence > > 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 > of > > course 'ie' is a perfectly good answer to 'xu do tugni' since that is i= n > 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, > innit" > > and it might be possible to extract from that something like a real > question, > > but the path is tortuous -- unless you just say it's an idiom, so don't > expect > > 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, But 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, > why > > 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). > > > I don't think much of > > the analogy, but it was Bergen's line not mine. But, along that same > paragraph, > > 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 > suspect > > that that sense carries over to other cases where it is relatively > absurd. On > > the other hand, the absurdity of 'uipei' makes me skeptical about > 'la'apei' 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. > > > But. 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 > another mark > > against the "logical language" claim, even in the official restricted > version). > > Logic doesn't really enter into it, but "pei" is certainly nice and > regular. > > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 Oren Robinson (315) 569-2888 102 Morrison Ave Somerville, MA 02144 --=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. --485b393ab865345de704963c84d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This lengthy conversation seems like a stark gap in interp= retation of a moderately used word. Doesn't LLC have some like, officia= l example sentence that explains the usage of a word? Isn't this what t= hose cmavo definitions are for? It seems really silly to watch this go back= and forth without any examples.=A0

2010/11/29 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com><= /span>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:06 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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= moves 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&q= uot;.
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 = have
> several times warned that I use the "express emotion" line a= s a shorthand for a
> longer description. =A0If you want to insist that I list all the thing= s out, I
> will beut it gets tedious for me and boring for you (and you will prob= ably dig
> up some cases I missed, anyhow).

I don't insist that you do anything, but if you ever feel like ma= king
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 ex= ample, 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 meaning, 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 a= n
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 t= o make
the usual jump of "whatever we say of 'ui' goes for all of UI&= quot;. 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= something 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 usefulness,
> both as another greeting and in more intense examination. =A0I can'= ;t fathom
> 'uipei', however, except as an idiom of a particularly illogic= al 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 sil= ly.
"UIpei" does not mean, as you seem to think, that the speaker say= s 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 pe= rfectly
compositional meaning, but it is not the meaning of UI and then
separately the meaning of "pei". (The same can be said of "U= Inai" for
example. When you say "UInai" you are not expressing something wi= th
UI, and then somehow reversing what you just expressed. You are
expressing something with "UInai".) =A0UIpei 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 incoherence
> 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 of
> 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 questi= on.

"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 speakin= g
there is no claim advanced with which to agree or disagree.

> But whether
> 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not thereby decided; it me= ans "Yes, innit"
> and it might be possible to extract from that something like a real qu= estion,
> but the path is tortuous -- unless you just say it's an idiom, so = don't expect
> it to be logical.

No, you are simply wrong about how "pei" works. It is perfe= ctly
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 kno= w, =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,= why
> shouldn't it take one to locate one in emotional space.

Because we happen to have words to express one's location in emot= ional
space but we just don't happen to have any to express one's locatio= n
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 paragraph,
> just what other purposes does 'ui' have than expressing happin= ess?

"ui" is for expressing happiness. UI has lots and lots of d= ifferent
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 suspect
> that that sense carries over to other cases where it is relatively abs= urd. =A0On
> the other hand, the absurdity of 'uipei' makes me skeptical ab= out 'la'apei' as
> well.

See? You think that some property of one UI somehow must generalize t= o
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 illog= ical,

No we don't. "UIpei" is no more idiomatic than "UI= nai" 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 an= other mark
> against the "logical language" claim, even in the official r= estricted version).

Logic doesn't really enter into it, but "pei" is certai= nly nice and regular.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Somerville, MA 02144

--
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.
--485b393ab865345de704963c84d1--