From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBCivezwBBoEIQ84Dg@googlegroups.com Mon Jul 11 09:02:59 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QgIwg-00015i-0G; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:59 -0700 Received: by wyh13 with SMTP id 13sf8107469wyh.16 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=2IUn8gzFWy/Wf6Qz4U//DXGei/9Ymlg5RutN3MyANYk=; b=lQ2Eff8SjLqjpPuepBlY51jWLNhkLV4O2VM3s6Zy6U43UXIQV7d189oq5yaEIOMrwH 97dT3xyTijIOzO1MJavYloDTC8tFuL+dZniMaUs44aOeygExWRwgXfKe9mXLcrsSbDMi zbZHUjAzQPmsjG88RNDJhtXxN1kZ1LQc3ADpk= Received: by 10.217.7.4 with SMTP id z4mr1867653wes.7.1310400162248; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.28.1 with SMTP id f1ls2136669wea.2.gmail; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.220.161 with SMTP id o33mr301373wep.12.1310400161512; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.220.161 with SMTP id o33mr301372wep.12.1310400161472; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l4si14043034wbo.3.2011.07.11.09.02.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.174; Received: by mail-wy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 8so3524728wyg.5 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.144.100 with SMTP id m78mr4357426wej.55.1310400161266; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.71.77 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:02:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201107090028.31171.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4E1A7244.2080107@kli.org> <7C93C87E-FBFF-4C18-A7D2-525EBF6BB974@yahoo.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:02:21 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d99d1d203c8704a7cd50a1 --0016e6d99d1d203c8704a7cd50a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I believe John's stance on this point (and I guess I half agree) is that {dai} does not say "you feel emotion X" it says "I feel empathy towards you with regard to emotion X" or something like that. How can I say "YIKES... for you". At that point I'm expressing a bridi involving "terpa" and not ".iidai". I do agree that the jbocecmu (myself at the forefront) seems to have a habit of trying to use attitudinals as shortcuts for "you must be feeling X" instead of using the gismu that were made for such expressions. But, I can also understand wanting to be able to express as an attitudinal that idea of "I feel emotion X with you" almost as though your emotional state is such that I am joining in with it through you. As in "lo do se rirni cu mutce stati tu'a lo pipno .o'adai" On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:52 AM, .arpis. wrote: > > 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. > -- 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. --0016e6d99d1d203c8704a7cd50a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe John's stance on this point (and I guess I half agree) is tha= t {dai} does not say "you feel emotion X" it says "I feel em= pathy towards you with regard to emotion X" or something like that.
How can I say "YIKES... for you". =A0At that point= I'm expressing a bridi involving "terpa" and not ".iida= i". =A0I do agree that the jbocecmu (myself at the forefront) seems to= have a habit of trying to use attitudinals as shortcuts for "you must= be feeling X" instead of using the gismu that were made for such expr= essions.

But, I can also understand wanting to be able to expres= s as an attitudinal that idea of "I feel emotion X with you" almo= st as though your emotional state is such that I am joining in with it thro= ugh you. =A0As in "lo do se rirni cu mutce stati tu'a lo pipno .o&= #39;adai"

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:52 AM, .arpis. <rpglov= er64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm trying to figure all the various discussions under this label = out. =A0Let 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 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= }. Just like {ui dai} ascribes happiness to the listener, {xu dai} ascribes= questioning to the listener. This is little use except as a rhetorical dev= ice, but AFAICT it's the only consistent interpretation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.

--
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.
--0016e6d99d1d203c8704a7cd50a1--