From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBDOudbnBBoEaaSQ5Q@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 16:54:54 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNay9-0004q1-QT; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:54:54 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf4972816wyb.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:54:43 -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:received-spf:received:mime-version:received :sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=O99szQtcLs+UlAKZCjjqjfIOElrQmjgAb0LuhOGZYbI=; b=337kC9Nd4Kr2PwbyFdX30NIsmQmJcNaQKGg73UokP3lwzqZ/fOZh52TAOb9JxPd6FJ l517SmKysXlT1hf9x/n4tBitvXrdQSUcnq5U0Ce0/3HvcfnvnpdLMyMfmNT85eA00aHE 9lX4nTYiEQ3mq0sxLPXN2FaS3zrzrUUkbvdu0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=OQ3SHXVt8tYiYNK1pAVr+R9BhXssbSVJCs5+H85LxbaPdQfsVFTrsNGMDtsaG8VTI0 ZhQ7gEeTOYNLKkP9zDLdmcJ07ciWTU974hQWv63Ml4x9NreYGR2jIRilb+EeF0b0Htuu 3A1HY14mXNKkokyAF5elJyk/v6KBZ4Ly1mhDM= Received: by 10.216.156.135 with SMTP id m7mr290108wek.10.1291164878480; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:54:38 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.208.4 with SMTP id p4ls2944711weo.2.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.36.21 with SMTP id v21mr483150wea.4.1291164877436; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.45.84 with SMTP id o62mr484477web.3.1291164129306; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.45.84 with SMTP id o62mr484476web.3.1291164129274; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l5si795110weq.15.2010.11.30.16.42.08; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.44; Received: by mail-ww0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 36so6733142wwa.1 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.184.66 with SMTP id r44mr1916130wem.10.1291164127940; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.183.197 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <164975.71420.qm@web81302.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> <164975.71420.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 00:42:07 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 30 November 2010 19:17, John E Clifford wrote: > "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".) =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. > > > [ But of course =91uinai=92 is a simple blend of =91ui=92 and =91nai=92: = =93Whee =96 not!=94, > totally natural (well, only lately) English, as is =93Whee =96 sorta=94 a= nd the like. In Japanese, "-nai" is a suffix for the negative form of a predicate (verb or adjective): ki-ru (dasni ja'a) ki-nai (dasni na) ureshi-i (gleki ja'a) ureshi-ku-nai (gleki na) Furthermore, Japanese "oi", like British English "oi", happens to be an exact equivalent of Lojban "oi", and the following expression is not impossible in an everyday Japanese situation: oi-ja-nai (oi zei na) This can possibly be used as a negating counter-complaint against someone who complained with "oi" (meaning that this someone was wrong in uttering "oi"). We can draw many analogies like this between Lojban and natlangs. However, xorxes' point is that the meaning of "uipei", like that of "uinai", is compositional, and I don't think that's the case with English "Whee - not!" or Japanese "ki-nai", "oi-ja-nai", etc. You say "uinai" is natural with respect to "Whee - not!", but it's very unlikely that we would find "Whee - not!" as an index in any conventional dictionary, while it's very likely that we would find "uinai" as such an index (jbovlaste does actually list "uinai" for "unhappiness"). > What is a case where this sort of thing is not true? So, =91uipei=92 come= s out to > mean =93Whee =96 but how much?=94 or something like that, possibly meanin= gfull but > basically dumb =A0-- nothing like the use you claim for it. The meaning of English "where" can be considered compositional, made out of "wh-" (question) and "-ere" (place), which may be similar to "bu'au pei" that was hypothetically suggested by xorxes. Asking "Where?", then, would according to you come out to mean "Place - but what?". This reading sounds dumb, but this isn't how the word comes out to experienced English speakers, is it? The listener is supposed to reply such that the "-ere" part of "where" gets specified: "here", "there", "at my house", etc. In my opinion, "pei" is similar to "wh-", except that it asks for an attitudinal expression rather than a predicate-oriented expression. If I were to invent an English compositional word for "uipei", I might suggest something like "whappy" from "wh-" and "happy". A: You bought me a cake! B: Whappy? A: Yippee!! In this example, A isn't supposed to answer with a propositional claim like "I am happy.", because the question is not concerned with the format of proposition. It therefore contrasts with the following, which is proposition-oriented: A: You bought me a cake! B: Are you happy? A: I am, very much. "Yippee!!" and "I am very much happy." are different manners of expression. But they can express the same thing. >> we seem to be content to allow them, so let them ride (but they are anot= her >>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 regul= ar. > > [Well, no. =A0=91nai=92, say, takes a first person expression and then mo= difies it in > this case rejecting it =93Whee =96 not=94, as we say, and similarly for = =93Whee =96 sorta=94 > > and so on. "broda jenai brode" is an expression not so much of "broda true; brode, true - not" as of "broda but not brode" based on the compositional meaning of "jenai". When I see "jenai", it doesn't partitively say to me "both the first and second elements are true - the second is not true"; it says "the first is true but the second is not", and that's because the meaning of "jenai" is readily compositional at the moment of the utterance. >=A0But =91pei=92 does not start out with a first person expression and add > something to it. =A0It somehow changes the first person expression into a= second > person and then asks about it. =A0There is a perfectly legitimate (is so = far as > =91pei=92 is legitimate at all) use that looks like this: Speaker says = =91ui=92,=91pei=92say > > the hearer. =A0No person shifting and a reasonable sort of thing to ask.] "uipei" is to be taken as semantically one thing at the moment of its utterance, and, in such an occasion of "pei", the utterer does not intend a first-person expression to begin with. "pei" does not mark such an intention of "this is my personal [UI]; now express your [UI]"; it marks "express your [UI]". --=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.