From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDviNfnBBoEy7-GKg@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 19:43:58 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNdbm-0000lD-Bk; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:58 -0800 Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17sf2497939gwj.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:48 -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:date:from:subject: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=PlXFND+XVOgnaH6Huplqr1Hi6+q0X7VBeA2EaE/RUbQ=; b=cPM6pvJaUj78A44RuUk46i9lxucRFYcQD3qb6qoR98bmsT/hWP2mbZ+PKykGVns6fq pu7XILKjyNmrqyLIQyl4H6mF42o1M0k/SiueMXGCt0aeTMIrE8FJC9LZiO/SXUv4Z+Vx HrBQnQwmiY1RcA5IR2zV2DM5Teaabf/f+VgzI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:date:from :subject: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=OiVwpBIw35DO66GE9gh+48Kv5iE468cNb9mGOWHM9TA7vyJxY0mVTFcUNvQ7aG7awZ uZdg+Fi79lZO/ceni07pTClv6mbIkvMOx4aBDBy0wu/XdeMzjVuP3XoY9fpwSH2c5Ygi mAVNCoBMJMjc3+rC7QMH4al48LjEWWK6hFAZg= Received: by 10.101.57.14 with SMTP id j14mr240347ank.68.1291175023828; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:43 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.164.26 with SMTP id r26ls1442981ano.4.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.207.3 with SMTP id e3mr1557886ang.41.1291175022904; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.207.3 with SMTP id e3mr1557883ang.41.1291175022798; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.120]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id f5si1510817anh.2.2010.11.30.19.43.41; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.120 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.120; Received: (qmail 18698 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Dec 2010 03:43:41 -0000 Message-ID: <90674.18497.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: NvBXo3EVM1k9hBUjViR08Lgd2XffPx_LEAWAO6V0Wnnb29a p8U4ytSc7T3YqV.IgTCI53nbn0xqoQ5K.Vp8c0rJdX1LRTmjbvcUKnbMjOup oA6cFIldIsuyd0SBQl1FirrSkw40a42.tUOG0YWHIVoXTI5etN81.hnigWjC ZwRuoczJ40afXxvjTdKKsNezOU8hkz2hkE45US5bmrtmryOoKSmPMM3m5Iru 1yB668fh9ySQHGJKv9Pd3GWuKj_eAKnOGqIOA983RxGq.kDQ9YlhdoWwF23T 2ymc3wLHkkKEAHfdjj0Xg_hmLccGcUrwyDgFgLrMVqojCYhWg83.19DclFYT KTi9Swn27qxD7dkN8ibRNe60oeIXNhSXkBe1wnDV6jeFYE.vMImKKW0T1 Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:40 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:40 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation To: lojban@googlegroups.com 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 68.142.199.120 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 The stuff about Japanese is interesting in its own right, but hardly releva= nt=20 to Lojban, which is built on a different system (if any). Nor is the Englis= h=20 significant except to show that the construction is not odd (which I suppos= e the=20 Japanese does too), The "where " case is not related either, since it does= not=20 involve two words or even two morphemes of English (I suppose you could arg= ue=20 about that, but it doesn't get this discussion much further). As for the= =20 analogy of 'bu'au pei', I can't find find the first part on any standard li= st,=20 so I assume it is some experimental innovation. But is it an attitudinal -= -=20 even in the rather broad sense -- to which 'pei' could be properly applied?= =20 "Place" doesn't say much about its role in an utterance; it is one of those= word=20 to express position that xorxes mentioned as parallel to the words in emoti= onal=20 space? Apparently, from your further remarks. So, 'bu'au' is my way of=20 expressing some sense I have of my special location, and 'bu'aupei' asks me= to=20 specify it more closely using another word that is used for expressing such= =20 feelings (see why I stick to "expression"?). It is still shifting from firs= t to=20 second person without any warning. Which, aside from the absurdity of reque= sting=20 someone to emote in order to get some straightforward factual information (= which=20 the emoting doesn't actually give), is what I object to about 'uipei' and t= he=20 like. Otherwise, your remark seems to fit the situation exactly and thus m= ake=20 the absurdity more clear, since "where" is not an attitudinal question (wha= tever=20 that means), but a factual one. As for "whappy", are you saying that "happy= " or=20 even "I am happy" have the same roles to play as "Yippee"? They can, of co= urse,=20 be used in that way, but need not be, while "Yippee" is much more restricte= d. =20 So I see know reason why "whappy" could not be just a factual question, usu= ally=20 presented as "Are you happy" or some such and A chooses to display the answ= er=20 rather than say it. Maybe "whippy" would be a better case. though with the= =20 usual problems. 'jenai' belongs to a totally different system and is perfe= ctly=20 non-problematic. It involves no unmarked shifts of person, no unusual reque= sts,=20 nothing at all out of line with the other connectives, or even with the=20 connective question (I am sure there is one, I just don't remember what it = is=20 off hand). 'uinai' doesn't work that way: as you say, it means "Express yo= ur=20 degree of happines" or some such thing and my question is simply, how does = it=20 mean that compositionally. That it is an idiom with that meaning I quite= =20 except, though I think it is a misleading one to have in a logical language= ; my=20 objection is to saying it is just a regular development like 'uinai'. ----- Original Message ---- From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 6:42:07 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation 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 a= nd the=20 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 -- 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. =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. "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 s= econd > person and then asks about it. There is a perfectly legitimate (is so fa= r 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.] "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= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. =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.