Well, I mean something boring like "Being expressed in the lan= guage of Logic". In that language, all factual information is conveye= d in sentences (bridi). It is possible, however, to abbreviate = sentences by definitions, provided that the sentence is recoverble (at leas= t in theory -- I don't recommend trying to do this for the sentences in Go"= del's incompleteness proof) by rule governed means. As for the rest o= f your questions, I find them confusing:"express" is a word that we have co= me to avoid in this discussion except as for exclamations indicating an emo= tion. And "relationship" is used as a thing-in-the-world and then as = a sentence type (apparently). But I think the answer to the question = buried there is that a reference to a relationship among objects should be made using a bridi.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 9:22:47 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for th= e perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

I'm confused. Could you define precisely what makes something "logica= l". It seems like I keep hearing things of the form "you're trying to= do X and that's not logical". But what exactly do you mean by that? = If I use something other than a bridi to express a relationship, does= that automatically mean that it's not logical? Do all relationships = HAVE to be made of bridi? Who says?

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:14 PM, John E Clif= ford <kali9put= ra@yahoo.com> wrote:
I suspect he means 'UIda'ai' which was apparently devised just for the purp= ose
given. But is illegitmate logically, without a whole mess of further<= br> considerations. (see previous letter and my reply).

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Daniel <craigbda= niel@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=

Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 7:32:18 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation<= br>

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Jon= athan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>= wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Why not, given that it is built on 'ie'?
>> Gee, I hope someone can do better than xorxes.
>
>
> Because of the bloody definition of the bloody word {pei}.
>
> UIdai is used to indicate another's UI-state, why do you have such a p= roblem
> with UIpei, which is used to ask about it?

UIdai is *not* used to indicate another's UI-state, but the speaker's
UI-state and the fact that it is empathetic in nature.

--
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
l= ojban+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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.