But it "says" (not really) "How much happiness do I express?" You are saying that this is an idiom, an _expression_ totally detached from its base meanin in an illogical way and tucked into the grammar (and semantics and pragmatics) of the logical language. Nice to have a short _expression_ for that, I suppose, since we have others for other conventional greetings (and in that case, the 'paunai' is definitely called for). But wouldn't just 'pei' do as well -- or better -- and be shorter, too?
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 12:40:13 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in other words, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener is.On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai', not a separate speech act. I was reading your phrase as three, not two. But whose 'ui' is it? The fact that it is an _expression_ seems to mean it is the speaker's. The fact that the speakers asks about its intensity seems to require that it is not , even if the question is rhetorical. If it were an _expression_ of the listener's emotions (which it cannot be, by definition), then the complete complex speech act of asking a rhetorical question would indeed imply something what your sentence says (reading it generously) or perhaps that I don't really
care about your feelings at all. But I see no reason to think it actually works that way nor that, even if it did, it would imply your putative sentence. The problem with the sentence is just the root problem of this whole issue, the use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb elsewhere). It is an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling huzzah". If it makes any sense at all, it means something like "feels like wanting to say 'ui'" or so. But it is a totally opaque way of saying that and Logjam (the logical language, before all) is meant to be transparent (at least to the extent of having its opacities clarifiable by following a few, mainly logical, rules). So, this _expression_ is not and should not be a part of Lojban.
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:58:56 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
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.
>
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.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
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.