The way I understand da'oi is that there is always an implicit la'a, pe'i, za'a or the like. If I see {.ui da'oi la .lindar.} I would probably expand this in my head to something like {pe'i la'a la lindar cinmo lo ka gleki}
On Sep 16, 2010 9:34 AM, "John E Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Briefly, the notion of other-centric UI is absurd. UI are used to express
> emotions, to grant certification, to make promises and so on. Thus they can
> only be used by the persons performing these acts. The most another person can
> do is either report that utterance of the word in question or (more daringly)
> claim that the first person has the emotion or whatever or has performed the act
> in question. Both of these are straightforward factual claims and, to the
> extent that Lojban is based on logic, need to be expressed in normal assertive
> ways: free standing sentences or non-restrictive relative clauses in such
> sentences. 'da'oi ui lindbar' fails this test unless it is an approved
> abbreviations for "Lindbar said "ui" about this subject" or "Lindbar is happy
> about this subject." At the moment, this does not seem to be the case, and,
> even if it is, it is very badly chose, since it does not *look* to be an
> assertion.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>