From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBCu59vnBBoEzcq_eQ@googlegroups.com Wed Dec 01 17:17:49 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNxns-0006pn-VD; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:17:49 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf6044103wyb.16 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:17:38 -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=ouZZxrfVqg3GznZ04YYnvu5GKJEm3dbUSN08ew6G0ak=; b=r4jd81Nay4SVTq5a0u2vdf/AAZrcTsDZ4ri1+3XxAQ5zRIVGpWw4K3p/j+I0B9w8eb fIYII4MIVjXJKO4RN/ea5Z6O6NFiR/8sELnmA215vF7PrC2tNf8ln0+ul/560RIh84/C 2UDSRLve8CbwIMQpqB0OnkaRm5u3Y7sBl1vNo= 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=iyYSwSQQZoqOHdALP2Eoyr0DQh3HueKqxfwDiNN5VgGohitM0bWmZU0v/9OIv2zul6 85MH264fjcPX4qanQdf+km07J2lIcPz3ZpRWS36V8ZEC0+ZMuHHsV4eOPBMSflAJa1pA L0wtSvoOfPLABG0R/HDIUXAyE80Fgwanzo2qY= Received: by 10.216.237.34 with SMTP id x34mr1201142weq.25.1291252654131; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:17:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.208.4 with SMTP id p4ls3437803weo.2.p; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.220.221 with SMTP id o71mr575199wep.2.1291252653195; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.45.84 with SMTP id o62mr538307web.3.1291219846241; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.45.84 with SMTP id o62mr538306web.3.1291219846201; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com (mail-ww0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id t18si15932wes.1.2010.12.01.08.10.45; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:10:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.52; Received: by mail-ww0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 20so3001787wwd.21 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:10:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.49.145 with SMTP id x17mr8172801web.55.1291219844909; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:10:44 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.183.197 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:10:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <90674.18497.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <90674.18497.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:10:44 +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 74.125.82.52 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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1 December 2010 03:43, John E Clifford wrote: > =A0As for the > analogy of 'bu'au pei', I can't find find the first part on any standard = list, > so I assume it is some experimental innovation. It is. I said "hypothetically suggested". > =A0But is it an attitudinal -- > even in the rather broad sense -- to which 'pei' could be properly applie= d? > "Place" doesn't say much about its role in an utterance; it is one of tho= se word > to express position that xorxes mentioned as parallel to the words in emo= tional > space? =A0Apparently, from your further remarks. =A0So, 'bu'au' is my way= of > expressing some sense I have of my special location, and 'bu'aupei' asks = me to > specify it more closely using another word that is used for expressing su= ch > feelings (see why I stick to "expression"?). > It is still shifting from first to > second person without any warning. Which, aside from the absurdity of req= uesting > someone to emote in order to get some straightforward factual information= (which > the emoting doesn't actually give), is what I object to about 'uipei' and= the > like. Otherwise, your remark seems to fit the situation exactly and thus= make > the absurdity more clear, since "where" is not an attitudinal question (w= hatever > that means), but a factual one. "o'e", too, is a way of expressing some spatial sense the speaker perceives. "mi viska ko'a .o'e" can, in my opinion, be an alternative expression to "mi viska ko'a noi jibni mi". "ko'a is close to me": while "noi jibni mi" expresses that through a predicative attribution, "o'e" expresses that through an attitudinal attribution. Then, suppose you are standing next to me together looking at ko'a, and I want to ask you if you feel any closeness about the visual object. I could do that in different ways: a) mi viska ko'a noi do ganse lo ka ke'a do jibni xu b) mi viska ko'a .o'epei Both ask what's essentially the same thing: "you feel closeness about ko'a?" According to you, these "request you to emote in order to get some straightforward factual information" and are therefore "absurd". No, these don't request you to emote; these question whether or not you feel a particular quality about a particular thing. If you don't, you can just reply: a') no'e go'i / to'e go'i / ... b') o'ecu'i / o'enai / ... To me, both (a') and (b') would be equally straightforward an answer to (a) and (b) respectively, and equally factual (or non-factual) to the extent that I could equally trust or distrust you on either of the answers. Both (a') and (b') would mean that you do not positively feel closeness about ko'a, and I can't think of any good reason why I should by default consider (b') less factual than (a'). If it's because an attitudinal expression doesn't involve a predicate, does that mean that parts of a sign language that don't use a predicative format for the purpose of practicality cannot communicate factual information? If a boy said "Yay!" as he opened his Christmas gift on one hand and the father commented on the mother's failed tasteless Christmas dishes by saying "I liked it very much.", would you say the boy's attitudinal expression is less fact-bearing than the father's predicative expression? > As for "whappy", are you saying that "happy" or > even "I am happy" have the same roles to play as "Yippee"? =A0They can, o= f course, > be used in that way, but need not be, while "Yippee" is much more restric= ted. "Whappy" as a hypothetical interrogative pro-interjection ("pro-" in the sense of "pro-noun") would ask the listener to respond in the format of interjection on a certain attitudinal spectrum, and "happy", "yippee", "whee", "yay", "alas", "alack", etc. fall into that spectrum (at least from the Lojbanic perspective) and would therefore each be semantically valid answers to "Whappy?". The regularisation of this kind of linguistic scheme is what Lojban exemplifies with "ui", "uisai", "uicai", "uicu'i", "uiru'e", "uinai", "uiro'a", etc. in relation to "uipei". The usage of "yippee" may be much restricted, yes, but I think that's a problem more of convention than of semantics. That people are not supposed to frequently express their joy/elation with "yippee" is a social rather than semantic limitation; that "yippee" and "I am very happy" can refer to the same feeling is not so much subject to the customary precept about appropriate/inappropriate moments to use "yippee". A non-customary use can register some extra-meaning in the context of the speech act, but that wouldn't likely much affect the prescriptive component of the word's semantics (e.g. if a head of state yelled "Yippee!" at a formal international conference, many listeners would take the utterance as an indication of some abnormality, but that wouldn't affect the word's basic reference to the feeling of joy/elation). > 'jenai' belongs to a totally different system and is perfectly > non-problematic. It involves no unmarked shifts of person, no unusual req= uests, > nothing at all out of line with the other connectives, or even with the > connective question (I am sure there is one, I just don't remember what i= t is > off hand). Neither does "uinai" involve unmarked shifts of person or unusual requests. Both "jenai" and "uinai" are semantically compositional, at least in that we are not to interpret first "je" or "ui" and only then "nai" such that it alters the first interpretation. > =A0'uinai' doesn't work that way: as you say, it means "Express your > degree of happines" or some such thing and my question is simply, how doe= s it > mean that compositionally. (Not "uinai" but "uipei".) "pei" is an interrogative pro-UI, so to speak, and it asks the listener to respond to that particular linguistic space so as to resolve the posed question, just like the interrogative pro-sumti "ma": do viska ko'a seci'o ma (You see ko'a with the feeling of ___[NOUN].) do viska ko'a pei (You see ko'a about which you feel "___[INTERJECTION]!".= ) And, in both cases, the questioner may be more specific: do viska ko'a seci'o ma po lo jei gleki (You see ko'a with the feeling of ___[NOUN] which is specific to the truth value of happiness.) do viska ko'a uipei (You see ko'a about which you feel "___[HAPPINESS-SPECTRUM INTERJECTION]!".) The difference is that the specificity of "uipei" occurs compositionally while "seci'o ma po lo jei gleki" is specific in an analytic way. > =A0That it is an idiom with that meaning I quite > except, though I think it is a misleading one to have in a logical langua= ge; my > objection is to saying it is just a regular development like 'uinai'. Both the compositional "uipei" and the analytic "seci'o ma po lo jei gleki" appear to me logical in their own way, to the extent that these are sufficiently unambiguous both syntactically and semantically as to what the speaker is asking. --=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.