From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhClnOzwBBoEbhiZ9A@googlegroups.com Mon Jul 11 07:52:37 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QgHqb-0003to-O0; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:37 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf5730356fxd.16 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=HZU87rSFeX/YXIMarV+ruR69kYkG07MW9kPVxE3vkKk=; b=LnqUAhhLAZBMbSwTsR2P0YMjtDopKP1iSTEUI9Hyh5xd0hSfpk+QjY2MvQaoZBGbV6 mroSS6cN96dtTbanhwQ80/c49rAP7K+8a26r4w7isdFTGxx2ignfvTKz+nTs6KhK5oEl 6o8RUaSbO4tV2UvWZeeMjQ31vPC9+MmX0YqDk= Received: by 10.223.92.145 with SMTP id r17mr1073649fam.28.1310395941898; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.34.76 with SMTP id k12ls6562452bkd.0.gmail; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.81.143 with SMTP id zy15mr138849bkb.0.1310395939974; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.81.143 with SMTP id zy15mr138848bkb.0.1310395939952; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com (mail-bw0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j17si6642463bkt.3.2011.07.11.07.52.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.45; Received: by mail-bw0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 12so3768372bwd.4 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.15.141 with SMTP id k13mr2032278bka.35.1310395939756; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.73.7 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7C93C87E-FBFF-4C18-A7D2-525EBF6BB974@yahoo.com> References: <201107090028.31171.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4E1A7244.2080107@kli.org> <7C93C87E-FBFF-4C18-A7D2-525EBF6BB974@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:52:19 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai From: ".arpis." To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555ba62811b5004a7cc54a2 --00032555ba62811b5004a7cc54a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > I'm trying to figure all the various discussions under this label out. Let > me summarize what I understand and then set me straight. > 1) Since 'xu dai' makes little sense literally, I take it it is an idiom of > some sort, apparently meaning "What is the appropriate UI to use here, with > reference to someone else?", I.e., "What would contextually defined so and > so have used at this point in this sentence --suitably edited?" So, 'mi > xu dai klama?' asks you what someone (contextually you, again, but I > supposed there is a way to assign it otherwise) would have said in the frame > 'do ... klama.' (or maybe, in this case, 'la pycyn ... klama'). The correct > answer is presumably something like 'zo ui' ( with an appropriate choice of > UI). The answer which seems to be given is 'ui', which clearly wrong in two > ways: it is now an expression of the respondent's response to being asked > the question (or something like that) and not someone's response to my > coming and b) if it were to be that it would be deceptive since it would not > actually express that emotion (in the usual case) but rather simulate it > after it had gone away. > I disagree with this interpretation of {xu dai}. Just like {ui dai} ascribes happiness to the listener, {xu dai} ascribes questioning to the listener. This is little use except as a rhetorical device, but AFAICT it's the only consistent interpretation. -- 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. --00032555ba62811b5004a7cc54a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm tryi= ng to figure all the various discussions under this label out. =A0Let me su= mmarize what I understand and then set me straight.
1) Since 'xu dai' makes little sense literally, I take it it is an = idiom of some sort, apparently meaning "What is the appropriate UI to = use here, with reference to someone else?", I.e., "What would con= textually defined so and so have used at this point in this sentence --suit= ably edited?" =A0 =A0 =A0So, 'mi xu dai klama?' asks you what = someone (contextually you, again, but I supposed there is a way to assign i= t otherwise) would have said in the frame 'do ... klama.' (or maybe= , in this case, 'la pycyn ... klama'). =A0The correct answer is pre= sumably something like 'zo ui' ( with an appropriate choice of UI).= =A0The answer which seems to be given is 'ui', which clearly wrong= in two ways: it is now an expression of the respondent's response to b= eing asked the question (or something like that) and not someone's resp= onse to my coming and b) if it were to be that it would be deceptive since = it would not actually express that emotion (in the usual case) but rather s= imulate it after it had gone away.

I disagree with this interpretation of {xu dai}. Jus= t like {ui dai} ascribes happiness to the listener, {xu dai} ascribes quest= ioning to the listener. This is little use except as a rhetorical device, b= ut AFAICT it's the only consistent interpretation.

--
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.
--00032555ba62811b5004a7cc54a2--