On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:39:39PM -0700, Lindar wrote:As far as I know, {.oi} is a pure emotion indicator; where do you
> According to CLL Chapter 13 Section 3 examples 3.8 through 3.12
> (and pretty much the whole chapter) a large number of UI1 do not
> actually work as emotional indicators, but as evidentials like in
> UI2. Rather than {.oi} expressing annoyance at a particular thing,
> it states that it works more like "Complaint: ", which to me seems
> more like something out of UI2.
see otherwise?
Please avoid {.ai} for this discussion; it is already controversial.
> Similarly, {.ai} seems to be "Intent: " rather than expressing a
> feeling of intent,
Those are irrealis as far as I know, yes.
> {.e'u} is "Suggestion: " instead of feeling suggestive, and {.e'o}
> is "Request: " instead of a feeling of petition.
UI1 vs. UI2 is simply how people decided to group them at some time
> There is a rather big inconsistency in this regard as some UI1
in the past; it has no formal impact on the language at all, they
are all just UI.
The issue with {.ai} is totally seperate.
> function this way, whereas some others such as {.ui}, {.iu}, and
> {.io} actually express pure emotion. As I understand it, this has
> been a very long debate, especially with regard to {.ai} (hence
> the alternate title).
That's unlikely.
> I hope to bring this to an end.
Then you might as well walk away now; I have little or no interest
> We -cannot- meet half way on this,
in discussion with someone who absolutely will not compromise.
Again: "UI1" has little or no meaning. Grammatically, there is just
> I propose to change this to one of two things:
>
> Option 1: Make all UI1
"UI". Some of them have irrealis meanings, some of them are pure
emotional _expression_, some of them convert between the two sort of
(da'i), and some of them are just bizarre (kau).
You're talking about destroying the meaning of basically *every*
> function the same by making them all evidential- like such that
> they work like {.e'u} as described in CLL; create a new set of
> cmavo based on UI1 with similar meanings, but indicating pure
> emotion.
piece of Lojban ever.
No.
> oi - "Complaint: "
> ui - "_expression_ of Joy: "
Picking on the two that are most well understood: what is it you're
intending these to mean, exactly? Surely you do not intend irrealis
"Complaint:"? If not, what is the change? These look like pure
emotional _expression_, which are what we have now. Seriously: I have
no idea how this is different than what we have now for those two
words.
Again: this breaks a *staggering* amount of extant Lojban. Why?
> Option 2: Make all UI1 express only emotion. Take the specific UI
> that do change the meaning of the bridi and move them to a new
> space in UI2 with cmavo that correspond to their counterparts (via
> previously mentioned method) as perhaps not all UI1 need an
> irrealis counterpart as in option 1.
You've given no reason why this is so amazingly important. So
different words have different semantics; who cares?
Having said that, I'd support this for the sake of consistency if I
thought there was any chance at all of it being approved by either
the BPFK as a whole or the LLG membership. I don't think there is.
There's no need to have a new set of words; just an irrealis marker,
> a'o - ia'o (hopefully vs. I hope that...)
i.e. {da'i}.
-Robin