From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDjntfnBBoEcF-Qkw@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 20:30:42 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNeL0-0003ku-EB; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:42 -0800 Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35sf5474366yxn.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:32 -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=R7VlI5TbX37OVjOpUPTOQTDZaU9k74jx8CJyfjAFmII=; b=N2JsRuyLW+TIA09YDfUk8LQZ2ybO2KXBo+YS9vM/UhYI/BrlfPpWt5tu3my6Vg0OaL 4ibj8wUZkujAZ+QErkbhX8dZmWYSRFwq3b2qOJ3oK2Bls+zUzyIvxWYc2KFP5vpoOCV3 E1f3ifnMJSCzspxgcPqVFlH1LRcwLG5YeHh+g= 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=dgZAxvOFArNvDixqANoUr6IHOFHIQqrqLOZcfTRxEI0EXDdmLpRk57dIniQoaRI0sR Dp8QS0QziHBaJk158HAxSFNh7xHjpTSZpTT+imS6zixTWdeOrAPUCwqNxcJOw2gxtm4S 4WqxcZlXvB3gsbNR3Mt76hpkzchXvZXw4yizI= Received: by 10.91.145.17 with SMTP id x17mr49341agn.25.1291177827629; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:27 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.19.201 with SMTP id c9ls2800949ibb.1.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.16.75 with SMTP id n11mr1935278iba.14.1291177825652; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.16.75 with SMTP id n11mr1935276iba.14.1291177825387; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:25 -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 d9si267273ibq.3.2010.11.30.20.30.24; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@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 38so372623iwn.18 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.10.193 with SMTP id q1mr8205947ibq.70.1291177824144; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.206 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <577940.60375.qm@web81307.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> <575924.12596.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <577940.60375.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:30:24 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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=0022152d60cd8ccf78049651c3de --0022152d60cd8ccf78049651c3de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oh. I thought the "yeah?" example was really good. If I saw the following dialog, I would probably translate it into lojban with .pe'ipei A: I think you're being intentionally obtuse B: oh yeah? A: yeah! becomes A: do tolselsnuti toljimpe B: pe'ipei A: pe'icai On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:00 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > Well, at last something like an explanation of how 'uipei' is regular. N= ot > like > 'uinai' at all, but like other question words. That helps a bit. but doe= s > not > explain what 'ui' is doing there. If I change "I am here " to "Where am > I?" > this is a totally regular change and everything remains the same except t= he > shift from statement to question, marked by WH-transformation in this cas= e. > But > in the move to 'uipei', the other parts do not remain the same and, indee= d, > bear > only remote relations to there earlier roles. 'pei' is indeed a miracle, > but > miracles don't belong in a logical language. As for the "Yeah" example, > notice > that it is still the speaker whose attitude (or whatever you want to call > it) is > being expressed; he is not asking his opposite number for his degree of > "yeahness". And, of course, 'gleki' and 'tugni' do not have parallel > logics, so > what works for one may not work for the other. I don't, by the way, obje= ct > to > 'ui' as an answer to 'xu do gleki', we can display answers as well as say > them. > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jorge Llamb=EDas > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:56:05 PM > Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversatio= n > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:59 PM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > {The word (if you prefer that) > > I'd prefer "phrase", since it's two words, not one, but nevermind. > You'll say I'm quibbling. > > > 'uinai' is composed of the word 'ui' , used to > > express happiness, followed by the word 'nai', the polar negation; > together > >they > > used, unsurprisingly to express the polar negation of happiness. Where > is the > > problem with that? > > There is no problem with that. "ui" is used to express something and > "uinai" is used to express something else. Those two things being > expressed are related in a way indicated by "nai", but one of them is > not part of the other in the way that the word "ui" is part of the > phrase "uinai". > > > The point is that it is still a first person word, > > Let's say that it is. Let's say that both "ui" and "uinai" are "first > person words" or "first person phrases". > > Are you suggesting that there is a rule that a first person word > cannot be transformed into a non-first person word or phrase (assuming > that a question is not first person)? Where did that rule come from? > Of course "pei" changes the type of speech act of the phrase it > appears in, all Lojban question words do that. > > > it > > expresses my sadness, whoever I may be in the situation, not yours or > theirs. > > Yes it does. > > > The fact that we happen to have word for the polar negation of happines= s > is > > irrelevant -- there several words in these sets where that is not true, > but > the > > forms work just the same.} > > I'm not the least bit concerned about the English translation. > > When a speaker says "uinai", they do not start by expressing > happiness. When a speaker says "uipei", they do not start by > expressing happiness. The type of speech act performed when saying > "uinai" is the same type of speech act as when saying "ui", agreed. > "nai" changes the meaning of the preceding word, (or more precisely > creates a phrase with a meaning related to but distinct from the > meaning of the preceding word) but the resulting phrase has the same > speech act potential as the unmodified word. "pei", on the other hand, > like all other question words, not only modifies the meaning of the > preceding word (or creates a phrase, etc) in a regular way, but it > also changes its illocutionary force. Nothing new or fancy about that. > > > {Faked obtuseness does not become you, but OK. If the shift between wo= rd > and > > expression is puzzling, lets put it this way: 'uinai' is a word compose= d > of > the > > word 'ui', which is used by a person to express his happiness, and the > word > > 'nai', used to form the polar opposites of other words. The result is > thus a > > word 'uinai' which is to be used by a person to express the polar > opposite of > > happiness, sadness, as he is feeling it (putatively). > > Right. > > > 'uipei' is a word formed from 'ui' as above and 'pei' a word which asks > about > a > > voiced item of the right sort ('ui' is) what degree of the the emotion > (etc.) > >is > > intended. Combined then it would seem to mean that the person uttering > it is > > expressing merely an uncertainty about where on the scale from happines= s > to > > sadness his feeling lie. > > No, that's not what it means. It means that the person uttering it is > asking their interlocutor to express where on that scale they are > feeling like. But we've been over that already a dozen times. > > > That seems a reasonable question ask sometimes, even > > if rarely. But that is not 'uipei' is reported to mean: it is expressi= ng > > nothing and asking a second person to express (not state) where their > feelings > > lie on that scale > > Bingo! > > > -- even though that second person may have shown no > > inclination to express anything at all on that scale. What miracle mad= e > this > > transformation? > > The miracle of "pei". > > What miracle turns English "Yeah!" into "Yeah?" I guess it's the > miracle of "?". Or maybe the miracle of intonation. Lojban usually > substitutes words for intonantion. > > > > {I know what it says*says*, but I also know what it usually means. One > who > >asks > > "Do you agree" is asking for a commitment, not genuinely asking a factu= al > > question -- despite the form. 'ie' is thus even semantically > acceptable.} > > A: xu do tugni > B: ie > > is exactly parallel to: > > A: xu do gleki > B: ui > > I'm still somewhat surprised that you are so strongly defending the > first while you would probably say that the second is riddled with > confusion. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > > > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=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. --0022152d60cd8ccf78049651c3de Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oh. =A0I thought the "yeah?" example was really good. =A0If I saw= the following dialog, I would probably translate it into lojban with .pe&#= 39;ipei
A: I think you're being=A0intentionally=A0obtuse
= B: oh yeah?
A: yeah!
becomes
A: do tolselsnuti toljimpe
<= div>B: pe'ipei
A: pe'icai

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:00 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, at last something like an explanation= of how 'uipei' is regular. =A0Not like
'uinai' at all, but like other question words. =A0That helps a bit.= but does not
explain what 'ui' is doing there. =A0If I change "I am here &q= uot; to "Where am I?"
this is a totally regular change and everything remains the same except the=
shift from statement to question, marked by WH-transformation in this case.= =A0But
in the move to 'uipei', the other parts do not remain the same and,= indeed, bear
only remote relations to there earlier roles. 'pei' is indeed a mir= acle, but
miracles don't belong in a logical language. =A0 As for the "Yeah&= quot; example, notice
that it is still the speaker whose attitude (or whatever you want to call i= t) is
being expressed; he is not asking his opposite number for his degree of
"yeahness". =A0And, of course, 'gleki' and 'tugni'= ; do not have parallel logics, so
what works for one may not work for the other. =A0I don't, by the way, = object to
'ui' as an answer to 'xu do gleki', we can display answers = as well as say them.




----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com<= br>
Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:56:05 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation<= br>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jo= hn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.= com> wrote:
>
> {The word (if you prefer that)

I'd prefer "phrase", since it's two words, not one, but n= evermind.
You'll say I'm quibbling.

> 'uinai' is composed of the word 'ui' , used to
> express happiness, followed by the word 'nai', the polar negat= ion; together
>they
> used, unsurprisingly to express the polar negation of happiness. =A0Wh= ere is the
> problem with that?

There is no problem with that. "ui" is used to express something = and
"uinai" is used to express something else. Those two things being=
expressed are related in a way indicated by "nai", but one of the= m is
not part of the other in the way that the word "ui" is part of th= e
phrase "uinai".

> The point is that it is still a first person word,

Let's say that it is. Let's say that both "ui" and "= uinai" are "first
person words" or "first person phrases".

Are you suggesting that there is a rule that a first person word
cannot be transformed into a non-first person word or phrase (assuming
that a question is not first person)? Where did that rule come from?
Of course "pei" changes the type of speech act of the phrase it appears in, all Lojban question words do that.

> it
> expresses my sadness, whoever I may be in the situation, not yours or = theirs.

Yes it does.

> The fact that we happen to have word for the polar negation of happine= ss is
> irrelevant -- there several words in these sets where that is not true= , but
the
> forms work just the same.}

I'm not the least bit concerned about the English translation.

When a speaker says "uinai", they do not start by expressing
happiness. When a speaker says "uipei", they do not start by
expressing happiness. The type of speech act performed when saying
"uinai" is the same type of speech act as when saying "ui&qu= ot;, agreed.
"nai" changes the meaning of the preceding word, (or more precise= ly
creates a phrase with a meaning related to but distinct from the
meaning of the preceding word) but the resulting phrase has the same
speech act potential as the unmodified word. "pei", on the other = hand,
like all other question words, not only modifies the meaning of the
preceding word (or creates a phrase, etc) in a regular way, but it
also changes its illocutionary force. Nothing new or fancy about that.

> {Faked obtuseness does not become you, but OK. =A0If the shift between= word and
> expression is puzzling, lets put it this way: 'uinai' is a wor= d composed of
the
> word 'ui', which is used by a person to express his happiness,= and the word
> 'nai', used to form the polar opposites of other words. =A0The= result is thus a
> word 'uinai' which is to be used by a person to express the po= lar opposite of
> happiness, sadness, as he is feeling it (putatively).

Right.

> 'uipei' is a word formed from 'ui' as above and 'p= ei' a word which asks about
a
> voiced item of the right sort ('ui' is) what degree of the the= emotion (etc.)
>is
> intended. =A0Combined then it would seem to mean that the person utter= ing it is
> expressing merely an uncertainty about where on the scale from happine= ss to
> sadness his feeling lie.

No, that's not what it means. It means that the person uttering it is asking their interlocutor to express where on that scale they are
feeling like. But we've been over that already a dozen times.

> That seems a reasonable question ask sometimes, even
> if rarely. =A0But that is not 'uipei' is reported to mean: it = is expressing
> nothing and asking a second person to express (not state) where their = feelings
> lie on that scale

Bingo!

> -- even though that second person may have shown no
> inclination to express anything at all on that scale. =A0What miracle = made this
> transformation?

The miracle of "pei".

What miracle turns English "Yeah!" into "Yeah?" I guess= it's the
miracle of "?". Or maybe the miracle of intonation. Lojban usuall= y
substitutes words for intonantion.


> {I know what it says*says*, but I also know what it usually means. =A0= One who
>asks
> "Do you agree" is asking for a commitment, not genuinely ask= ing a factual
> question -- despite the form. =A0'ie' is thus even semanticall= y acceptable.}

A: xu do tugni
B: ie

is exactly parallel to:

A: xu do gleki
B: ui

I'm still somewhat surprised that you are so strongly defending the
first while you would probably say that the second is riddled with
confusion.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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= @googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--0022152d60cd8ccf78049651c3de--