From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCLndznBBoEE6vXAQ@googlegroups.com Wed Dec 01 19:12:26 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNzan-0006E5-Kj; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:26 -0800 Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19sf6357860gxk.16 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:15 -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; bh=tdAl9LB9kvTnuUbpKp3X/rdg+GfG8UL5Cg9nrg5xEuw=; b=KTT/EWBci57UYgi4FjN0v3kPoBNq4tiWXF3qDGIyl0xfQP2bDhxan1WvNnIJU0sUmZ 8cFxkriu75lUvq6qYnGeQ8f2HWehberZSDPR1RFQfedp1KLzkpYNE7CISk9iGslKdWUM VZVshz2tXD33IGYUyjAFCv8YiOFr9E3iorRVo= 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; b=3vjdsDzLsUdHRUNot7CIBwaCAU+QmdEnDLVe1c0KPcuMVzuxEZLEBukgJJk3zCbKp8 40GS16GuWDhNTssM6l6rcQifzxerGs0G9plehGgzTu3d2Rp/FN5ymqwzoA93cYdKOKts r6X1W5toTDoM46acqgym146p84pa7VokNeE2E= Received: by 10.90.95.14 with SMTP id s14mr19117agb.5.1291259531324; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:11 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.18.19 with SMTP id v19ls2050673agi.6.p; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.144.17 with SMTP id r17mr150592agd.11.1291259530486; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.144.17 with SMTP id r17mr150591agd.11.1291259530371; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.123]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 47si45144yhl.12.2010.12.01.19.12.09; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:09 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.123 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.123; Received: (qmail 72556 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Dec 2010 03:12:08 -0000 Message-ID: <886191.70119.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: AyKylowVM1naxC_5TeCKE6NMRniTGd8er0VpPF90yjm99i2 4S1.1x9qpKdtfEMVv2782IqXp2_TUwVGbSIWZut9qFcbE86mtqkVxRktUvGN lQMzGP_7iBSBk07DltVGU974xVWSpJ0PJZSx_2IWO0suCq0VV0m4qqKcau0w LeFDmRR2fF1AfGDzcJWsVmiyzE.RqaaPXYHgkvipRzumEdd798tiZ8e0ijSe OmisJJJ7IPtgmzdU2yaCDdgfNZtHCle6P2EVYReXrY9kqzr_gkhuYx4dpJPv VE3xy8A5RjvSfDZDpL71rTfZdC9bRlA37UWJRpNAioy6.i2BMcqDINYelLKk ucEJaESdgy7ka3Kl3TB4Q.K5MUSjWgexcdWsqS_6HnQq0kfy7lYoePQ4bSg- - Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12:08 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 References: <90674.18497.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:12:08 -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 68.142.199.123 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=ISO-8859-1 Well, if you admit that they are equally factual and the a cases clearly are, then the b cases must be factual too, and so, in a logical language, should be represented by bridi -- that is just a part of the logical tradition. While Logjam has departed from that tradition in many ways, this would be the first time (I think) that it has gone directly against it. BTW I would not have taken 'o'e' to be spatial but rather emotional closeness, but I may be wrong about that. But, that aside (and the factuality question) I now see how 'o'epei' and a response of 'o'e' and maybe some CAI are legitimate, once we get away from the notion that the core purpose of UI is expression (etc.) to seeing that as merely a use (among several) of the words. Given that shift -- which no one pointed out to me, alas (at least in a way to make me understand it) -- all my objections to 'uipei' and responses disappear, except the question of whether they are legitimate in a logical language and your arguments pretty much convince that they are not, except as abbreviations, with strict rules for turning them back into propositional form. So, we appear to agree, unless I have missed some point in your remarks. ----- Original Message ---- From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 10:10:44 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation On 1 December 2010 03:43, John E Clifford wrote: > As 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". > But is it an attitudinal -- > even in the rather broad sense -- to which 'pei' could be properly applied? > "Place" doesn't say much about its role in an utterance; it is one of those >word > to express position that xorxes mentioned as parallel to the words in emotional > space? Apparently, from your further remarks. So, '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 such > 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 >requesting > 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 >(whatever > 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"? They can, of >course, > be used in that way, but need not be, while "Yippee" is much more restricted. "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 requests, > 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 it 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. > '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 does 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. > That it is an idiom with that meaning I quite > except, though I think it is a misleading one to have in a logical language; 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. -- 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=en. -- 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=en.