From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCGvNbnBBoE3lCXJQ@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 17:00:08 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNb3A-0005jD-8Q; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:00:07 -0800 Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17sf2407198gwj.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:54 -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=WWXKwG5psxnA/1PP60kgLEq4YbKStLPQOPwgzsMUirg=; b=X5fP0kq0F3Tyn9eK/qETk/F5wo+Q2kOpkQXkjN2BiTg/m1v5r4iP4MUXlstlyw29Ie ev7V/wnBCbRys2lqEGJwleR4QUttXQZcq9bJWB3HifF5iqxhJR5erEcApH/y87B0qcA7 T0U9kAMbjkfitQFkeapdsiPYZaA4Aq0DLl4EU= 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=OzV1kmwC9nTqkBFSAVXKx0I6+ffL6aQriopQ/U71FHOh5X7lulD+SoeJ/PO7VarJgx na0DbJiCA+dHwxVP1PS3CQK9qZLZElHUSZRuPE201uIX/fuw25IlX9i3Z5lxVexerdpC OlBeJwNpDEefKeqm+Wtua9lK7Au3GxqzuiL8A= Received: by 10.100.168.3 with SMTP id q3mr243061ane.49.1291165190099; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.56.38 with SMTP id e38ls82338ana.3.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.127.10 with SMTP id z10mr1572931anc.47.1291165189304; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.127.10 with SMTP id z10mr1572930anc.47.1291165189171; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.124]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id y14si1530686any.7.2010.11.30.16.59.47; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.124 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.124; Received: (qmail 14227 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Dec 2010 00:59:47 -0000 Message-ID: <575924.12596.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: bQhDBgUVM1n4CIBayWo5H20E822iwbjslNsF8sPUPsCjrhJ FiN7PsXzgqYxSqndN2YwmujS2xidbqz.QOLUVpFhpy6n8gUlJ.NS4vXfPoQQ qvxqunOtCX5At4Q1vMx6QOFnFAkkohdbhTtJWPyIj9.8JPyF82bm2jd_QgdB Av1uP6KNzz7mzB26.qEpM3aQUP8lv.NcvZyNOTUalCGQyLGB18QPHtkRGxMx ywHSJps8HIb6kg9p4yqouPWmRLhNru1Fgzw1yVbPky7Gtxk4y1OqoRk1W.oU tprcxPJOZvdHg76U1rPRjVSgbNjANPcapywqsa5H_Wa5fUpClaSSMAvQYxKf 2NG.3Kpfr0xgfmkpo1v74DkBa0v1R3beFxiVWM67HJiCl1FvLG02LpOs- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:47 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> <164975.71420.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:59:47 -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 68.142.199.124 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 ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 5:07:39 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation No, "uinai" is an expression of saddness, it is not an expression of happiness followed by the negation (or reversal) of the preceding expression. {The word (if you prefer that) 'uinai' is composed of the word 'ui' , used = to=20 express happiness, followed by the word 'nai', the polar negation; together= they=20 used, unsurprisingly to express the polar negation of happiness. Where is = the=20 problem with that? The point is that it is still a first person word, it= =20 expresses my sadness, whoever I may be in the situation, not yours or their= s. =20 The fact that we happen to have word for the polar negation of happiness is= =20 irrelevant -- there several words in these sets where that is not true, but= the=20 forms work just the same.} You misanalyze both "uinai" and "uipei". {Well, I certainly didn't misanalyze 'uinai' and, so far as anything you ha= ve=20 said goes, 'uipei' is simply unanalyzable, since its parts are contradictor= y.} You seem to be confusing words with expressions (i.e. the use of words). "nai" does not change an expression, it changes a word. If you really think that expressing sadness is akin to a blend of expressing happiness and then doing something else, (expressing reversal? or what?) then I'm afraid we won't get anywhere with this. {Faked obtuseness does not become you, but OK. If the shift between word a= nd=20 expression is puzzling, lets put it this way: 'uinai' is a word composed of= the=20 word 'ui', which is used by a person to express his happiness, and the word= =20 'nai', used to form the polar opposites of other words. The result is thus= a=20 word 'uinai' which is to be used by a person to express the polar opposite = of=20 happiness, sadness, as he is feeling it (putatively).=20 'uipei' is a word formed from 'ui' as above and 'pei' a word which asks abo= ut a=20 voiced item of the right sort ('ui' is) what degree of the the emotion (etc= .) is=20 intended. Combined then it would seem to mean that the person uttering it = is=20 expressing merely an uncertainty about where on the scale from happiness to= =20 sadness his feeling lie. That seems a reasonable question ask sometimes, e= ven=20 if rarely. But that is not 'uipei' is reported to mean: it is expressing= =20 nothing and asking a second person to express (not state) where their feeli= ngs=20 lie on that scale -- even though that second person may have shown no=20 inclination to express anything at all on that scale. What miracle made th= is=20 transformation? I assume it was some combination of laziness and the peren= nial=20 confusion between expressing and stating, but even those hardly seem adequa= te. =20 The fact that 'ui' 'pei' is a perfectly reasonable exchange may have contri= buted=20 as well.} > "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 > =D8 [Well, as I said, this is an innovation whose purpose is obscure= . It is often necessary to have the syntactic support even when the semantic effect is neutral. If you understand the purpose of "ja'a" and "ja'e", you will also understand the purpose of "ja'ai". {As I said, it seems an odd place to make this addition when there are othe= r=20 places that need it more, but I do understand what it is for: reassuring yo= ur=20 interlocutor that you really did mean this UI, not some other. And perhaps= that=20 you mean it bare, without further qualifications.} > I > suppose it is meant to reassure that I really meant this UI rather than s= ome > other: =93Whee =96 yes indeed=94, probably in response to a =91pei=92. I= t seems like > there are other places where something like this would be more useful, bu= t I > most of them can be covered by the placement of =91ja=92a=92] I'm surprised that you think "ja'a" can replace "ja'ai", since "ja'a" is a strictly propositional operator. {Fortunately you actually included the relevant quote, so notice that I now= here=20 say that 'ja'a' can replace 'ja'ai'; I said that most of the *other* cases = which=20 need affirmers can be handled by 'ja'a', which can, I think, turn up just a= bout=20 anywhere in a bridi. If I am wrong about that, then I would go back to ask= inbg=20 why we have one here and not in half a dozen other slots.} >> 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 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 > =D8 [I suppose this is a contextual matter. One doesn=92t ordinaril= y ask for > agreement unless there has been a position set out already, the x2 and x3= of > =91tugni=92. I couldn=92t think of a case to lay out, so I skipped it, f= iguring tou > could fill in the blanks.] A: xu do mi tugni lo du'u lo snime cu blabi B: ie The expected answers to a xu-question are "go'i" or "na go'i", meaning: go'i=3D mi do tugni lo du'u lo snime cu blabi na go'i=3D mi do na tugni lo du'u lo snime cu blabi {I know what it says*says*, but I also know what it usually means. One who= asks=20 "Do you agree" is asking for a commitment, not genuinely asking a factual= =20 question -- despite the form. 'ie' is thus even semantically acceptable.} The answer "ie" is pragmatically acceptable, but strictly speaking doesn't make much sense. It doesn't mean: "ie [go'i]", B agreeing that they agree, because there was no claim put forth that they agree. It means "ie [lo snime cu blabi]", but that claim was not put forth directly either. The natural use of =EFe is in: A: lo snime cu blabi B: ie As a response to a claim, not to a xu-question, or also: A: lo snime cu blabi iepei B: ie as a response to a "iepei" question. If someone asks you a "Do you agree that ..." and you say "Yes" you are agr= eeing=20 on that matter. That is part of the logic of "agree" and of 'tugni' too, a= s far=20 as I can tell (otherwise the translation is terribly misleading), You can = agree=20 without being asked, of course, though one usually doesn't; one just=20 acknowledges that the claim is true, without any commitments. 'iepei' suff= ers=20 from the same problems as 'uipei': only I can commit myself and asking me t= o do=20 so when I have no inclination at all along that line is just plain Uncooper= ative=20 (the worst crime in Conversation). Of course, it also doesn't really ask m= e to=20 that, rather the speaker is mulling the question of commitment -- a wise mo= ve=20 generally.) > Logic doesn't really enter into it, but "pei" is certainly nice and regul= ar. > > [Well, no. =91nai=92, say, takes a first person expression and then modi= fies it=20 in > this case rejecting it =93Whee =96 not=94, as we say, and similarly for = =93Whee =96=20 >sorta=94 > > and so on. No, that's wrong. When someone says "uinai", they don't start by expressing happiness. The only thing they express is sadness. > But =91pei=92 does not start out with a first person expression and add > something to it. The word "pei" modifies the preceding word. The compound "UI pei" is used to ask a question. The meaning of "UI pei" is easily and regularly derived from the meanings of "UI" and "pei". {You keep saying this in the face of a mass of contrary evidence but give n= ot=20 the vaguest indication of how this comes about. How does first person word= use=20 to express a feeling, become a second person word use to indicate a scale? = What=20 are the steps, that parallel those for 'uinai', say? > It somehow changes the first person expression into a second > person and then asks about it. You keep confusing words with expressions (=3Dthe use of words). {OK a word used to express a first person experience into one about a secon= d=20 person experience. The shiorter form is easier and no one has been confuse= d, I=20 think.} > There is a perfectly legitimate (is so far as > =91pei=92 is legitimate at all) use that looks like this: Speaker says=20 >=91ui=92,=91pei=92say > the hearer. No person shifting and a reasonable sort of thing to ask.] That's not how "pei" is meant to work, and not how it works in practice eit= her. {Why isn't that? That is a perfectly good use and involves no contradictio= ns. =20 I suspect it doesn't work that way because it is in the wrong word class,= =20 haven't been mixed up with 'nai' and the like, in some late night brainstor= ming=20 after a pizza and Jolt party in Virginia (there wer a lot of them and some = of=20 them still show).} =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.