[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: xorxes' idea of UI, as interpreted (was Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI.)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Robin Lee Powell wrote:


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.


I (xalbo) do agree with the phrasing in that mail. The problem of statements
being false-to-fact is already all around us, in tense ("No, I didn't tell you
I'd take out the trash, I said I did take it out. Last week."), in number, in
what fills all the implicit {zo'e} we leave scattered around, etc.

The cost of infinite precision is infinite verbosity. The cost of infinite
brevity is infinite vagueness, and the potential for infinite gluteality.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

There are always more fish in the sea, not as cute, nor as rich, but fish
nevertheless.
    --From a fortune cookie

--
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.