It means exactly what it looks like. Pei asks the receiver how much or if at all they are feeling the .ui and then the paunai says "but that wasn't a question". In other words, I would read it as an exclamation of "I know to what extent or whether or not you are feeling .ui". In other words, a cheap way of expressing .ui for them, or rather expressing that I know the extent to which they could accuratly express .ui (be it cai, cu'i or nai)
On Nov 28, 2010 10:41 AM, "John E Clifford" <
kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Still not clear what the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> To:
lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:34:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
>
>
> Ok, I see where you're going. So "oooo, that looked like it hurt" might become
> something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu". I suppose. It's just unfortunate
> that there's this rich exclamation system that I can only use to indicate my own
> emotional state. But I guess it makes sense and I should stop trying to
> shoehorn .ui and friends into shortcuts for bridi that involve do.... or just
> say .uipeipaunai =p
> On Nov 28, 2010 10:01 AM, "Craig Daniel" <
craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So long as empathy doesn't require that I feel the actual emotion myself,
>>> I'm fine with that. I don't want to say .oidai and accidentally imply that
>>> I .oi
>>
>> I always understood it as expressing empathy with the perceived oi,
>> which can't possibly mean you feel oinai. There is absolutely a
>> difference between recognizing pain in somebody else and empathizing
>> with it!
>>
>> I'm sorta with JEC on this one, in that UI should be expressing your
>> emotion, but if da'oi is really just about expressing your empathy
>> with a specified person then it makes total sense to me. Some
>> da'oi-advocates seem to indicate that this is what it is - something
>> semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent of dai
>> (although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Although
>> if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of resetting the
>> referent of "do"?) Some seem to want it to mean "I believe so-and-so
>> feels the emotion indicated by saying whatever attitudinal (or,
>> apparently from some example sentences, string of attitudinals -
>> something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or after
>> oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotional
>> state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts about the world,
>> not expressing your own feelings; statements of fact or belief like
>> that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cmavo
>> whose advocates can't agree on what it means, because that kind of
>> imprecision is incompatible with what the non-experimental parts of
>> the language strive to be (although they have sometimes been every bit
>> as murky in their own way), so you can put me in the anti-da'oi bin
>> until you guys make up your mind.
>>
>> The notion that saying "no, da'oi shouldn't work like that even though
>> nothing else does" is telling you that there's no good way to say
>> "ooh, that must have hurt" in Lojban is just silly, because nobody but
>> you seems resistant to using the vast majority of the grammar in the
>> way it was intended - the "ooh" is an English UIesque interjection
>> about the *speaker's* emotion, and the rest of the sentence is a
>> declarative sentence and really ought to be translated as one. The
>> emotional gismu were created for a reason.
>>
>> That said (tangent warning!), I think there's quite a difference
>> between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an unexpected party is
>> much more akin to the former, and is not empathizing with anything at
>> all. It is not a perceived emotion, but an intended one. If it is to
>> be expressed with a UI at all, and I'm not sure it needs to be, it's
>> definitely not one modified with dai (or da'oi, if that's a
>> specified-referent dai relative).
>>
>> Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for
>> intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synonymous, and
>> ueblah conveys something like "this is said/done with the intent that
>> it will be surprising!" But such a hypothetical cmavo is not and
>> should not be confused with dai. If da'oi is a semantically dai-like
>> cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quickly get a
>> corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-intent
>> cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easily say "spaji
>> .ai" in the three syllables needed for any experimental cmavo not
>> starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji
>> da'oi."
>>
>> - mi'e .kreig.
>>
>> * John: by "oiing" in this context I mean "expressing pain through
>> the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it's an English
>> shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" rather than for "cortu."
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>