[lojban] Re: other-centric UI

[Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>]

> and it is entirely within your right to disagree.  Of course, it is also the
> right of the jboce'u to say "ok, great, disagree.  now go talk your own
> special language to yourself because that's not the language that we
> made/use and please don't call what you're doing lojban".

Fair enough.

> The CLL and what sounds like the majority of the jboce'u say that {.ai mi
> dansu} means "I intend to dance".  I believe that this is both right and
> wrong.  I think that UI cannot be expressed in english in text alone.  I
> would translate {.ai mi dansu} as "I'm gonna dance" (spoken with a certain
> inflection that connotates intention).

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Who says this?

> Your statement was something like "what's the point of pacna if .a'o means
> the same thing".  That to me sounds kind of like "what's the point of dunli
> if we have du".  Different connotation, different style, just... different.

dunli and du are two different words.

dunli - x1 is equal to x2 in property x3
du - x1 is identical to x2

My statement still stands. {.i .a'o do kanro} is not stating anything
more than {.i do kanro}, it's just also stating that you feel hope
about it. {.i mi pacna lo nu do kanro} -does- mean more than that. If
you intend to do something, then with an attitude of intent, you
future do it. {.i mi ba dansu} doesn't actually assert whether or not
it actually happens, AFAIK, so {.i .ai mi ba dansu} means specifically
what most seem to think {.ai} conveys by itself. It's the difference
between "I hope that..." and "Hopefully..." in English

> Yeah, "I am dancing and I feel hopeful about it" sounds far more useless
> than "I hope to dance".  In the case where you want to express that
> (whatever it means) you could always just say {mi dansu .ije cinmo lo ka
> pacna ku di'u}.

Okay, perhaps my fault came from expressing tense in English.
Let me put it this way:
A sentence that uses UI should mean the exact same thing as a sentence
that doesn't use UI, and the only difference should be that the former
expresses emotions about things. If you say {.i .a'o mi klama} alters
the meaning of the bridi, then -all- UI alter the meaning of the bridi
(otherwise there's a gross inconsistency in the language, amirite?),
so what does {.i .ui mi klama} mean?

-- 
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.