Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy81p-0004Dj-BP; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:24 -0700 Received: by pvc7 with SMTP id 7sf644465pvc.16 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:15 -0700 (PDT) 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :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 :content-disposition; bh=vMs93YweeQ+yD/x+Ois/6cfpSHeiGRC4A3wF3J/u2tg=; b=0YXkTMTJWmb6Ka90+jx/t8ONu42dVYKSbXAgqyPcj5jJRD93SYUx/P+L2+yjFMNKw7 NpeUuLDWekqtUpNbgM2q17GXgYcGfrNSww2F4sOwx/1P5mRc1NyPrR1N3ouDjymAMExD 2IqxlsWdrDBEvFKT5vkZ0P9a8VfgxU61Yh5e8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :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 :content-disposition; b=iF4PLI6nN9oSIuXkU1mxHF483IOVRqxAa6GjD2FdJNeBP11HLhgWa7IAjES4/TfyrM AHQehil6OUJno/1BEHRXtGd7W1MhyVM7n367Ru6Duocz8hA8gsWAEsdUWLMOI1dLdmAK w8ul86lNKPGfW9sGq+JDkiz6NgwtqWU8efmI4= Received: by 10.142.193.7 with SMTP id q7mr297716wff.39.1285095429872; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.6.9 with SMTP id 9ls8557794wff.3.p; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.202.17 with SMTP id z17mr777354wff.34.1285095429449; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.202.17 with SMTP id z17mr777353wff.34.1285095429420; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (173-13-139-234-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id w33si3749053wfd.1.2010.09.21.11.57.09; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 173.13.139.234 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy81c-0004DV-CR for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:08 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:57:08 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: xorxes' idea of UI, as interpreted (was Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI.) Message-ID: <20100921185708.GB30871@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com References:

<2de88d23-c009-41e9-bb9c-86d1425b1b64@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <-3659970292795760364@unknownmsgid> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <-3659970292795760364@unknownmsgid> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 173.13.139.234 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2274 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:19:35PM +0200, Daniel Brockman wrote: > > So... I can tell this has already been shot out of the water. =D > > > > Any serious opinions either way? > > You don't think xorxes's opinion (all emotional indicators are > vague as to whether the sentence is an assertion or a > hypothetical, although some are usually used with hypothetical > sentences due to the emotion most often occurring simultaneously > as someone compares alternate universes, and some are usually used > with assertions due to the emotion usually occurring as someone > experiences or thinks about a fact, and you can always force one > or the other using {da'i} or {ju'a}) is a serious one? Which by > the way xalbo already seconded and incidentally I happen to agree > with and find a very elegant and lucid way of defining these > semantics. > > I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most experienced > Lojbanists would probably agree with xorxes's definitions once > they'd read and understood them and would probably benefit from > doing so. I have a weird relationship with xorxes' suggestions; they almost always offend me at first and then impress me later. :) This time I supressed the former response and tried to think of it on its merits. It's a little bit like the whole "CAhA when unspecified is undefined" thing, which is disturbing in that it means that any sentence could be false-to-fact without declaring so, but the principle of non-gluteality applies better in this case than in that one. I think I like it. I'd like to hear other oldbies' opinions. Especially if xorxes and xalbo actually agree with the phrasing above. -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.