Well, that is interesting, particularly the translatio= n of "deliberately obtuse". But I wonder if it catches the combative = flavor that almost always underlies these exchanges. The "Yeah?" is n= ot merely (if at all) a question, but rather a challenge. I leave it = to someone else to work out the details.

I have, happily, fina= lly 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. To b= e sure, this indication can be used to express a place on that scale, but t= hat is secondary. This leaves a few questions and worries: where, other than with 'pei', can a scale indicator be used in this fundamental w= ay? What is the semantic status of this indication (reference to an object,= to a property, to a concept, ...)? Doesn't this suggest even more st= rongly that the UIpei UI(CAI) exchanges is propositional, that the respondi= ng UI is true or false, rather than just sincere or not? Since I can'= t think of any way of deciding any of these questions without a living spee= ch community, I guess I'll drop this for a while.
One other upsho= t of all this would seem to be that the use of 'dai' and 'da'ai' to project= feelings onto other people would appear to be legitimate, though still (mo= re) suspiciously propositional. I would suggest, however that 'dai' b= e restricted to empathetic emotions (for which it was designed and which ar= e nonproblematic) and 'da'ai' be used for projections which don't involve t= he speaker's emotions (etc.). 'dai' probably then needs to be moved to another class or otherwise be reinterpreted so that it can take s= omething other than 'do' (to which it would still default) as the reference= to its target.

= From: Luke Bergen <luke= abergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 10:30:24 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-cen= tric-.ui conversation

oh. I thought the "yeah?" example was really good. If I saw the= following dialog, I would probably translate it into lojban with .pe'ipei<= div>A: I think you're being intentionally obtuse

B: oh = yeah?

A: yeah!
becomes
A: do tolselsnuti toljimpe
<= div>B: pe'ipei

A: pe'icai

= On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:00 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wr= ote:

Well, at last som= ething like an explanation of how 'uipei' is regular. Not like
'uinai' at all, but like other question words. That helps a bit. but = does not
explain what 'ui' is doing there. If I change "I am here " to "Where = am I?"
this is a totally regular change and everything remains the same except the=
shift from statement to question, marked by WH-transformation in this case.= But
in the move to 'uipei', the other parts do not remain the same and, indeed,= bear
only remote relations to there earlier roles. 'pei' is indeed a miracle, bu= t
miracles don't belong in a logical language. As for the "Yeah" examp= le, notice
that it is still the speaker whose attitude (or whatever you want to call i= t) is
being expressed; he is not asking his opposite number for his degree of
"yeahness". And, of course, 'gleki' and 'tugni' do not have parallel = logics, so
what works for one may not work for the other. I don't, by the way, o= bject to
'ui' as an answer to 'xu do gleki', we can display answers as well as say t= hem.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=

Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:56:05 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation<= br>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jo= hn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.= com> wrote:
>
> {The word (if you prefer that)

I'd prefer "phrase", since it's two words, not one, but nevermind.
You'll say I'm quibbling.

> 'uinai' is composed of the word 'ui' , used to
> express happiness, followed by the word 'nai', the polar negation; tog= ether
>they
> used, unsurprisingly to express the polar negation of happiness. = ;Where is the
> problem with that?

There is no problem with that. "ui" is used to express something and
"uinai" is used to express something else. Those two things being
expressed are related in a way indicated by "nai", but one of them is
not part of the other in the way that the word "ui" is part of the
phrase "uinai".

> The point is that it is still a first person word,

Let's say that it is. Let's say that both "ui" and "uinai" are "first
person words" or "first person phrases".

Are you suggesting that there is a rule that a first person word
cannot be transformed into a non-first person word or phrase (assuming
that a question is not first person)? Where did that rule come from?
Of course "pei" changes the type of speech act of the phrase it
appears in, all Lojban question words do that.

> it
> expresses my sadness, whoever I may be in the situation, not yours or = theirs.

Yes it does.

> The fact that we happen to have word for the polar negation of happine= ss is
> irrelevant -- there several words in these sets where that is not true= , but
the
> forms work just the same.}

I'm not the least bit concerned about the English translation.

When a speaker says "uinai", they do not start by expressing
happiness. When a speaker says "uipei", they do not start by
expressing happiness. The type of speech act performed when saying
"uinai" is the same type of speech act as when saying "ui", agreed.
"nai" changes the meaning of the preceding word, (or more precisely
creates a phrase with a meaning related to but distinct from the
meaning of the preceding word) but the resulting phrase has the same
speech act potential as the unmodified word. "pei", on the other hand,
like all other question words, not only modifies the meaning of the
preceding word (or creates a phrase, etc) in a regular way, but it
also changes its illocutionary force. Nothing new or fancy about that.

> {Faked obtuseness does not become you, but OK. If the shift betw= een word and
> expression is puzzling, lets put it this way: 'uinai' is a word compos= ed of
the
> word 'ui', which is used by a person to express his happiness, and the= word
> 'nai', used to form the polar opposites of other words. The resu= lt is thus a
> word 'uinai' which is to be used by a person to express the polar oppo= site of
> happiness, sadness, as he is feeling it (putatively).

Right.

> 'uipei' is a word formed from 'ui' as above and 'pei' a word which ask= s about
a
> voiced item of the right sort ('ui' is) what degree of the the emotion= (etc.)
>is
> intended. Combined then it would seem to mean that the person ut= tering it is
> expressing merely an uncertainty about where on the scale from happine= ss to
> sadness his feeling lie.

No, that's not what it means. It means that the person uttering it is
asking their interlocutor to express where on that scale they are
feeling like. But we've been over that already a dozen times.

> That seems a reasonable question ask sometimes, even
> if rarely. But that is not 'uipei' is reported to mean: it is ex= pressing
> nothing and asking a second person to express (not state) where their = feelings
> lie on that scale

Bingo!

> -- even though that second person may have shown no
> inclination to express anything at all on that scale. What mirac= le made this
> transformation?

The miracle of "pei".

What miracle turns English "Yeah!" into "Yeah?" I guess it's the
miracle of "?". Or maybe the miracle of intonation. Lojban usually
substitutes words for intonantion.

> {I know what it says*says*, but I also know what it usually means. &nb= sp;One who
>asks
> "Do you agree" is asking for a commitment, not genuinely asking a fact= ual
> question -- despite the form. 'ie' is thus even semantically acc= eptable.}

A: xu do tugni
B: ie

is exactly parallel to:

A: xu do gleki
B: ui

I'm still somewhat surprised that you are so strongly defending the
first while you would probably say that the second is riddled with
confusion.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.