On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM, John E Clifford <
kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But there is something odd about asking someone to express on a scale.
answer is up to the one responding. For example: "iepei", "do you
agree?". I don't really care for a nuanced answer, but you may feel
compelled to make it nuanced anyway.
> Presumably, he has already expressed his degree of happiness in some way, since
> that is what we are asking about -- refine your _expression_.
I don't think that would be the usual case.
> But under these
> conditions what we are asking for in not actually an _expression_ but information,
> we want to know a fact. And that just isn't what UI (and UICAI) are about.
We are asking about someone's attitude: "iepei", "do you agree?",
"e'apei", "may I?"(Do you give your permission?"), ".u'upei", "any
regrets?", "je'epei", "OK?" and so on.
> If
> I stop and consider whether to say 'uicai' or 'uicu'i' or 'uinai' or decide to
> stick with just 'ui' I am no longer expressing my happiness in any natural sense
> of the word, but rather describing it.
The idea that UIs must somehow come directly from the gut and not pass
through the brain is one of those Lojbanic myths that have no reason
of being.
> If I burst in the room and say "uicai, I
> passed", then I am probably expressing my extreme happiness. If, on the other
> hand, I stop to analyze my feelings and then say 'uicai' I am more likely
> seeking to give information -- especially if I do it in answer to a question.
> And UICAI is not about giving information.
"la'acai" means that I consider something extremely likely. It is
certainly informative. I don't see why UIs can't contain any
information.