From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCx_d_nBBoELFsppQ@googlegroups.com Thu Dec 02 12:17:03 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1POFaO-0001eS-69; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:17:03 -0800 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf7068842ywh.16 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:54 -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=+SSSMkqx/0Z52QSW1Xu2gK+fShPLS0aGIJg0RVepm44=; b=roZwkcK2G3je418yRl0R4yWWsOJUUAyT59oIh52KUfyd5WbYtlljEXaeASCSuXq4Fe 0aYHY/2BSstEeIv2gIb/ts7b9RRV8p3wPucQrZ8SMiN0CEWqfbufBnt9mLGO8tc6vGbs VwV1F8L5v9kAKFAwxCGVBoB5oPWXTwwnmKQAE= 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=6s9uwWEz5jTzXkdTVbhQcY+m7ZbYvG9UQ4I08CwHbwooID0nIwIfIf8JB623hA2lCY YNEk8OJJ9ZnxCqo1FaZMtVwTRkOWMCAwtpiEiGmI0n61je58S0XtaxsduGO0W9aQAIuL IAXtoTgZivftZuIHT1dHQi5FkEMx4nNnisLig= Received: by 10.91.32.31 with SMTP id k31mr93644agj.28.1291321009310; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:49 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.17.22 with SMTP id 22ls2110606agq.2.p; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.195.12 with SMTP id s12mr294632ybf.8.1291321008368; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.195.12 with SMTP id s12mr294631ybf.8.1291321008330; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:48 -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 q8si192996ybk.0.2010.12.02.12.16.47; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:47 -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 21931 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Dec 2010 20:16:46 -0000 Message-ID: <685026.21857.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 7salJIcVM1kmvP.8BVlEfJixx3Wi2C0tPMA5Rtrjh2.2ofZ 4phzeU0dq5rBaNoHHbvQKnklOpk8nf9ArlXNkpkn5.93ls29CiOuC5jDtrEY f8RiRXK3icl7P0g6qdA3gP2_axnQXXRZiyXWP1reBZcekXLukO5szrIVZTrB YE2jCuVfGbP3gXszDhDJa..IDk3lOSR4Zwt3gqZEiVmPd4_VO.9w8i_RfETB F7SLSfIDY56mkUIdRoj6vjwz8hyWCaK5bfgXz3jD88Ez_Ymx8VsIyovv5akg 7OQyAAwwgX0gApY_wUlaSiB1f5SKEm9F8dtYllGQDZ2_KyF2fjxFPmg1UO1y zn0KD_1WnHh2dgPhY23SZ327NZLGpHqBh25Ijs6Jm7tMrFJhEvsaWmWWO Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:16:46 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 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> <638130.69866.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:16:46 -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 Quite right, but the pattern I was pointed to was the addition of -cai and -nai, which didn't change any of the basic character the base UI as first person emotions. Once 'pei' got out of that analogy, the rest fell into place (or maybe it was the other way round). The bridiness of 'pei' and its answer is not a sticking point but a place where I am still uncomfortable, because it looks like something it is not (of course, you may think it is what it looks like and I don't. I don't suppose this is going to make much different in our usage until we come across a case where the answer is suspect and the I will say the person is lying and you will say he is not sincere, or something like that). ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 2:01:40 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:20 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > I have, happily, finally figured out what y'all haven't been telling me: the > fundamental meaning of the discursives is not first person expression, as > the literature might lead one to believe, but merely to indicate a > particular scale. Drat! I was (seriously) about to try that tack with you, saying that I didn't see hte "firstpersonness" as being inherent in the UI. But that's what happens when I'm behind, and threads continuously evolve and get pushed off deeper in the stack of gmail to read. My SECONDARY tack would have been to say, "even IF firstpersonhood were inherent in UI, what's the problem with a transformational word? After all "a bu" doesn't mean "I'm saying a sumti disjunction...whoops, I'm not, it's the letter A". Nor does "re mei" mean "there are two of... oh, wait, I mean something is a duet". Plenty of lojban words completely change the meanings of preceeding words. Why can't "pei" mean, "if you were to say the previous word, how would you do so, including any modifiers thereunto?"...or something like that? (I know, I know, that would be a whole bridi the way I express, but hopefully, that's not gonn abe the sticking point)." --gejyspa -- 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.