From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC7m9XnBBoEwGzkqA@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 11:17:30 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNVhe-0006d6-7O; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:30 -0800 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf5085009ywh.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:20 -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=eTqQ/nKzK7WF7/ExHDkIeokT3bWBvUaWpgayjXwDxa4=; b=EGQryfnjelGdWu3CTTpGP2tzcr3xJKhKFzjQ5GDeD8dRVNMUgRrv8+M5zd0qAqPd5u SdRW3YbdEiKjhdnIGt8f1HSNAH+6co2nNVdjiKRhqnbpLwHm7H54K2Nz1HmyRNK1UeUK V5pWRXZQH28fQb7iWEppvuLP5eSmQWSo5/OlQ= 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=GIDJrvW9JvUVblaVuGI2BOqBibAI4Lm+sqfDkwMIbMinAzHOxznw1oCEKtGqF37dnt CgGUDUGu/llmvnkNrqUPWQq3DfpJwChSjV0dpP+dmTPUegNNoWXp/JdsnQdeG79Hom3l nXATDOarcHH1V2LqhmHe4mgJlR8zB7I5F+AIU= Received: by 10.91.109.14 with SMTP id l14mr13475agm.21.1291144635659; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:15 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.22.18 with SMTP id 18ls1373411anv.1.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.254.9 with SMTP id b9mr1482362ani.20.1291144634795; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.254.9 with SMTP id b9mr1482361ani.20.1291144634773; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.118]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id a26si1095823ana.5.2010.11.30.11.17.13; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.118 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.118; Received: (qmail 72329 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Nov 2010 19:17:13 -0000 Message-ID: <164975.71420.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: tA1b2GkVM1neB9IWnukSpLkFWwk59MaOhGHms_hc5UAFC6L XED12.BS7Xtkymkt7Bm7IEuPFwqbqIUROzlmOVhpt.3OZ.HjEpCSE9wybTVj _Kjb4fudUt5hWXLlUcvC7McxpQrqAGJHPKKCwqW1lTS3nL4r35Ed5CPSCYpP Qc_eMjqg9n_FjeOLUmOx3OzcUH_TQG6pZBVwww4JIwbZs2538NmTCdAi0fX8 1rmkOpEBB4kr17FG2hb.Ie9_3PyD_SR7FKjjQhQKdEXvpzWB9OsoIfYBDwlN 1ybcqpXitmo8oyMcovbAJirOnRfP4IkcJIx8k8JDZ3gBjgorjAog_iOyZAuf 9PUolJ6t_OFwngNXMuWUNL_1DDVSvxQn9mn_kI6.2NRnIMg-- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:13 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> <306693.13766.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:17:13 -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 68.142.199.118 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=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is going to be long and boring, if you are not interested in the topi= c=20 (and probably even if you are) so feel even freer than usual to skip it. e xorxe 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=20 >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. [I refuse to be attacked for my jokes. Indeed, no UI sounds much like a gr= unt=20 since they don=92t have final consonants, nor like a wheeze either (no init= ial=20 h). But, if that is the worst generalization I made (though I didn=92t mak= e that=20 one), I don=92t feel too bad anyhow. I have indeed generalized about class= es of=20 UI (and related areas) and perhaps not been clear about the limits of the= =20 generality =96 just as I have used =93express=94 for a number of different = activities,=20 with diminishing similarities as we get farther from the core. Sorry =91bo= ut=20 that. Perhaps if the list were a bit better organized, it would be possibl= e to=20 deal with problems more precisely. As it is, it is hard to remember, just= =20 looking at it, whether a word is a pure expression of a feeling or a world= =20 changer, so some of my particular remarks may have been out of line for=20 particular example. But I do think we have not gotten very far from expres= sions=20 proper in this discussion, so the fault may not be very great.] > Yes, UI is used > for several other purposes than expressing emotions and mark a variety of= =20 >speech > acts. Right. > I have not yet found a useful way of expressing that explicitly but have > several times warned that I use the "express emotion" line as a shorthand= for=20 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 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. > On the flip[ side, of course other things can > be used to express emotions: I suppose that 'mi gleki', for example, can = be=20 >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. [Of course you are. The one between a slightly more complex expression of = joy=20 than =91ui=92 and a claim about your emotional state. The one is sincere o= r not,=20 the other is true or false.] > As for inference 3, I don't quite > know what you mean by "communicate". In 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 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. [Is that jump really usual? If it is, maybe we should look to see if there= may=20 not be something in it. I don=92t think I made that jump, by the way.] > 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 somethin= g=20 more > by "communicate"? I hope I made myself a little more clear now. [Yup. But I am not clear about the relevance. To be sure, a person can sa= y=20 =91ui=92 when there is no one about, and be performing the same act she doe= s when=20 someone is about. But that is true of most speech acts (though occasionall= y we=20 have to split the speaker into speaker and hearer). Now, it is the case th= at=20 the rational use of =91pei=92 does require another person, but the split se= lf=20 routine still works.] > While I have a certain amount of difficulty with 'pei', I can see it=20 >usefulness, > both as another greeting and in more intense examination. I can't fathom > '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. [ But of course =91uinai=92 is a simple blend of =91ui=92 and =91nai=92: = =93Whee =96 not!=94,=20 totally natural (well, only lately) English, as is =93Whee =96 sorta=94 and= the like. =20 What is a case where this sort of thing is not true? So, =91uipei=92 comes = out to=20 mean =93Whee =96 but how much?=94 or something like that, possibly meaningf= ull but=20 basically dumb -- nothing like the use you claim for it. Something like it= has=20 a perfectly meaningful use, of course: A: ui B: pei. No change of meanin= g of=20 either =91ui=92 or =91pei=92 and a sensible question (if a bit rude in this= case). But=20 you would have attaching =91pei=92 change =91ui=92 from a first person expr= ession to a=20 prompting for a second person expression, with a tag yet. None of the othe= rs=20 work anything like that.] =D8 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 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. =D8 =20 =D8 [Well, as I said, this is an innovation whose purpose is obscure. = I=20 suppose it is meant to reassure that I really meant thisUI rather than some= =20 other: =93Whee =96 yes indeed=94, probably in response to a =91pei=92. It = seems like=20 there are other places where something like this would be more useful, but = I=20 most of them can be covered by the placement of =91ja=92a=92] > 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. =D8 =20 =D8 [I suppose this is a contextual matter. One doesn=92t ordinarily = ask for=20 agreement unless there has been a position set out already, the x2 and x3 = of=20 =91tugni=92. I couldn=92t think of a case to lay out, so I skipped it, fig= uring tou=20 could fill in the blanks.] > 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). =D8 =20 =D8 [See above. In what sense is it compositional? It more like Monta= gue=20 grammar than item and arrangement (or process); the end result has practic= ally=20 nothing to do with its parts: the first person =91ui=92 has been put in so= meone=20 else=92s mouth. The question, which made sense of after someones exclamatio= n, is=20 asking for such an exclamation, whether or not the second person was so=20 inclined. And so on.] =D8 =20 > The "grunts and wheezes" line was hyperbole, as you well know, But the p= oint > there was that if it takes a real question (declarative statement with an > interrogative particle of some sort) to locate 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). =D8 =20 =D8 [I doubt that it is happenstance, but still, even if we had expres= sions=20 of some sort to express our perceived location, it would still make sense t= o as=20 for a GPS reading in a straightforward question. And to get an answer in a= =20 straightforward declarative sentence. And no amount of expressive content= is=20 going to come up to that standard.] =D8 =20 =D8 > I don't think much of > the analogy, but it was Bergen's line not mine. But, along that same=20 >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. =D8 =20 =D8 [You here (and occasionally earlier) seem to be making the confusi= on=20 between =91ui=92 and =93UI=94 of which you unjustly accuseme. I asked abou= t the word=20 =91ui=92 not about the whole class UI. Though, the question applies equall= y to each=20 member of that class: what else does it do than such and such?] =D8 =20 > 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= . On > 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. =D8 =20 =D8 [ No, I am quite aware that =91la=92a=92 is a disclaimer not the e= xpression of=20 an emotion and personal only insofar as it is one persons assessment of an= =20 objective reality. This connection with objective reality makes the questi= on=20 possible without contradiction. But the fact that it is personal to any ex= tent=20 does make me wonder if it is also as logically absurd as =91uipei=92. How= ever, on=20 the other side, =91la=92apei=92 makes sense even before the second says =91= la=92a=92, again=20 thanks to the objective component. I keep going back and forth on this one= . I=20 have no problem coming down on =93absurd=94 with =91uipei=92.] =D8 =20 > But. as I have said. we have an idiom here and though they are illogical, 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=20 >mark > against the "logical language" claim, even in the official restricted=20 version). Logic doesn't really enter into it, but "pei" is certainly nice and regular= . [Well, no. =91nai=92, say, takes a first person expression and then modifi= es it in=20 this case rejecting it =93Whee =96 not=94, as we say, and similarly for =93= Whee =96 sorta=94=20 and so on. But =91pei=92 does not start out with a first person expression= and add=20 something to it. It somehow changes the first person expression into a sec= ond=20 person and then asks about it. There is a perfectly legitimate (is so far = as=20 =91pei=92 is legitimate at all) use that looks like this: Speaker says =91u= i=92,=91pei=92say=20 the hearer. No person shifting and a reasonable sort of thing to ask.] =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.