From lojban+bncCL-Ey5qiChD4ttznBBoEfr55cw@googlegroups.com Wed Dec 01 20:07:34 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PO0SA-0000qT-9i; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:34 -0800 Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11sf6372034gyb.16 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:24 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=J2v2k5TmfaxuKBgvjitWF8eyHI4Fj/Lkh+IlekizprQ=; b=gwr0r4dt5jsWt9AMxIu3W7Sje+OA+Ee9+oavdmQCA53un91uoTgqc6vl3us5LE/uo9 tHGl9h8C7KfMqP2JEjlQe8DrSh5hP1ORFpaiICdRE5R1EQFEKzIqKvdrSLKvp3Qdpz+n 9hD6xxA+uXUYkFmaQnqVKLb7RBqOSuAQxL/vo= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=7Ea4iUgNb3qKf+0LH/tZTe2+fX+pR/c+am+7M67z5s1ln0nFbBZIHwE9e+pLG73WGW 9ubrZAqKcNyzdVO+imLk3eCxvLRfdLhZA4nWdQjGFoO0kX3bwEnnX/1YvjJzsW7KvmxV riopvhKM87aM0VojjHsEIvO9C2lukLPf6nRTM= Received: by 10.90.155.19 with SMTP id c19mr14349age.51.1291262840405; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:20 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.76.225 with SMTP id d33ls3278040ibk.2.p; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.15.194 with SMTP id l2mr1454204iba.3.1291262839793; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.15.194 with SMTP id l2mr1454201iba.3.1291262839502; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com (mail-iw0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id d9si20625ibq.3.2010.12.01.20.07.18; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so11418373iwn.40 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.165.202 with SMTP id l10mr2776025icy.488.1291262838384; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.196.198 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:07:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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> <144450.19864.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <132939.86626.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <886986.39526.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <476795.46183.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435142.54831.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <194237.46033.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <944795.22261.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:07:18 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: Craig Daniel To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: craigbdaniel@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=craigbdaniel@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > I'm confused. =A0Could you define precisely what makes something "logical= ". > =A0It seems like I keep hearing things of the form "you're trying to do X= and > that's not logical". =A0But what exactly do you mean by that? =A0If I use > something other than a bridi to express a relationship, does that > automatically mean that it's not logical? =A0Do all relationships HAVE to= be > made of bridi? =A0Who says? I believe what he means is this: In Lojban, we can express propositions through a structure based on predicate logic. That structure is the bridi. We also have structures in the language that are not derived from any type of formal logic, and are in that sense not "logical." John Clifford's argument (with which I basically am in agreement) is that, to be in keeping with the stated design principles underlying Lojban (and inherited from and in this instance I believe more strongly present in Loglan), non-logical structures cannot be used to express propositions. Applying this to the matter at hand, the following piece I believe to be uncontroversial: ".ui" has no truth value, and so cannot be wrong, even though it can be said by an unhappy person and means an expression of happiness. Similarly, ".uidai" does not actually imply the proposition that somebody other than the speaker is happy, even though it would not be said sincerely by a speaker who does not feel that they are empathizing with somebody happy. This is because neither one is propositional. This is also why, although you can disagree with somebody else's bridi and negate it with a simple "na go'i," there is no way to negate another person's UI-expressions - though you can express your own opinions about their emotional state, either as assertions (".uicai broda" ".i do na gleki") or, possibly, by empathizing with the emotion you perceive behind their apparently insincere expression (".uicai broda" ".uinaidai"). However, I can see no easy way to define "da'ai" such that it does not contain anything propositional, because the speaker is commenting on observations they have made which can themselves be incorrect - that is, it is *inherently* possible to say ".uida'ai" and be wrong. (I gather others - namely the proponents of "da'ai" - probably disagree here; I suspect John does not.) As regards "pei," I may be mistaken but I believe John is of the opinion that answers to questions are always propositional and thus there is no way to answer a "pei" question that shouldn't be a bridi. Here some disagree with the general principle about questions; it happens that I do not. However, I do disagree with the conclusion - "pei" is not IMO a question in some deep formal sense (though we call it one due to the fuzzy semantics of the English word "question"), but a request; it asks the listener to respond with an expression that lacks propositional force, and so asks for information only pragmatically. In this way, it does not IMO attempt anything of the sort Lojban insists on handling logically, and so the fact that it is non-logical in nature is entirely consistent with Lojban's heritage. - mi'e .kreig. --=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.