From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCLu9bnBBoEiSOA6w@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 16:58:02 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNb1B-000316-OR; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:58:02 -0800 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf5358683ywh.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:52 -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; bh=OEev8XQZGSfO/aGMPhb7zy4Tqx1labiGpamfl2ZByhc=; b=dWuUvd3gnaZ1evIiPt5QSwDCjaHZZguWgZ5RSlqSRS1CGr+6EyT60SEER1LVp4kG2y N1DJ/j+zPQ7a5FN8TrntePdyA3N8cILdKVm8CUTznzyutbPlMAViRSZ/goY6JH6oRgw2 Zr7nb20BiclbcWj+Bs8I69fu0opjIQKrTNOfs= 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; b=wZAY04FhNz3iikTAxKlTDszQNRhOFgcNk/GJu1Y+NB+XPF53b13yABeSiTTDPTx9F5 WCF4CNNQzIqM3ccdfpTgz2s4MA9w/3h1Hs8BeFwsxl1pQBdo17LJoOapozpSbK2PHnN7 qQrRofu22GhCG7o14CufTinEL6MhLYomdcwPE= Received: by 10.100.142.12 with SMTP id p12mr239209and.73.1291165067145; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:47 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.19.201 with SMTP id c9ls2736423ibb.1.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.31.4 with SMTP id w4mr668122ibc.9.1291165066299; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.31.4 with SMTP id w4mr668121ibc.9.1291165066243; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com (mail-iw0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m30si2205558ibu.6.2010.11.30.16.57.45; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.173; Received: by mail-iw0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 38so151657iwn.4 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.15.137 with SMTP id k9mr8190551iba.58.1291165064951; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.207.65 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:57:44 -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> <164975.71420.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:57:44 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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=0022153dd7cf0af9a304964ecb20 --0022153dd7cf0af9a304964ecb20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:42 PM, tijlan wrote: > 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".) 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, > > totally natural (well, only lately) English, as is =93Whee =96 sorta=94= and 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 co= mes > out to > > mean =93Whee =96 but how much?=94 or something like that, possibly mean= ingfull > but > > basically dumb -- 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 > 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. > > > > [Well, no. =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. > > > > But =91pei=92 does not start out with a first person expression and add > > something to it. It somehow changes the first person expression into a > second > > person and then asks about it. There 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. No 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]". > Precisely. --=20 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 d= o zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=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. --0022153dd7cf0af9a304964ecb20 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:42 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 November 2010 19:17, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> &= quot;uipei" is not the best choice to examine "pei", just be= cause "ui" is
> mainly purely expressive, and asking someone to provide a purely
&g= t; expressive locution is slightly silly. (But still meaningful.) But
&g= t; don't go and conlude from that that "UIpei" in general is = silly.
> "UIpei" does not mean, as you seem to think, that the speake= r says UI
> and then, independently, asks the listener to provide som= e 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 somethi= ng with
> UI, and then somehow reversing what you just expressed. You= are
> expressing something with "UInai".) =A0UIpei asks th= e 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 =91u= i=92 and =91nai=92: =93Whee =96 not!=94,
> totally natural (well, only lately) English, as is =93Whee =96 sorta= =94 and the like.

In Japanese, "-nai" is a suffix fo= r the negative form of a predicate
(verb or adjective):

ki-ru (da= sni 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", a= nd 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 agains= t
someone who complained with "oi" (meaning that this someone = was wrong
in uttering "oi"). We can draw many analogies like this between L= ojban
and natlangs.

However, xorxes' point is that the meanin= g 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 t= o "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
&= quot;uinai" as such an index (jbovlaste does actually list "uinai= " for
"unhappiness").


> What is a case where this sort of thing is n= ot true? So, =91uipei=92 comes out to
> mean =93Whee =96 but how much= ?=94 or something like that, possibly meaningfull but
> basically dum= b =A0-- nothing like the use you claim for it.

The meaning of English "where" can be considered compos= itional, made
out of "wh-" (question) and "-ere" (pl= ace), which may be similar to
"bu'au pei" that was hypothe= tically suggested by xorxes. Asking
"Where?", then, would according to you come out to mean "Pla= ce - but
what?". This reading sounds dumb, but this isn't how t= he word comes
out to experienced English speakers, is it? The listener i= s supposed
to reply such that the "-ere" part of "where" gets spec= ified: "here",
"there", "at my house", etc= . In my opinion, "pei" is similar to "wh-",
except t= hat it asks for an attitudinal expression rather than a
predicate-oriented expression.

If I were to invent an English compos= itional word for "uipei", I might
suggest something like "= ;whappy" from "wh-" and "happy".

A: You bou= ght me a cake!
B: Whappy?
A: Yippee!!

In this example, A isn't supposed to a= nswer with a propositional claim
like "I am happy.", because t= he question is not concerned with the
format of proposition. It therefor= e contrasts with the following,
which is proposition-oriented:

A: You bought me a cake!
B: Are yo= u 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 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.
>
> [Well, no. = =A0=91nai=92, say, takes a first person expression and then modifies it in<= br> > this case rejecting it =93Whee =96 not=94, as we say, and similarly fo= r =93Whee =96 sorta=94
>
> and so on.

"broda = jenai brode" is an expression not so much of "broda true;
brod= e, true - not" as of "broda but not brode" based on the
compositional meaning of "jenai". When I see "jenai", i= t doesn't
partitively say to me "both the first and second elem= ents 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 readi= ly
compositional at the moment of the utterance.


>=A0But =91pei=92 does not start out with a fi= rst person expression and add
> something to it. =A0It somehow change= s the first person expression into a second
> person and then asks ab= out 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 an= d 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 no= t
intend a first-person expression to begin with. "pei" does n= ot mark
such an intention of "this is my personal [UI]; now express= your
[UI]"; it marks "express your [UI]".

Precisely.


--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a= 9;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/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0022153dd7cf0af9a304964ecb20--