Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

Well, I didn't say where the idiom strarted but, as I suspected. apparently it is with 'pei'. 'ie' is not an it, but a mark of agreement. the "yes" of my version. 'pei' is Lord knows what,. but apparently a question about some of the things that fall into UI and the like. But what kind of a question i9s it? Not a "yes/no" clearly, so an identity question. But it doesn't look like an identity question (or a yes/no one, for that matter) and something that performs a linguistic function that it is not designed to do is an idiom. 'pei' is in CAI (I assume), a rough marker of intensity of emotion (or whatever in the flotsam and jetsam of discursives). The only discursive here is one about MY agreement -- it can't be anyone else's. So, the whole means "I agree, how much?" or, presumably, "How much do I agree?" You don't come into it at all. Now, I also think that using a CAT to ask a factual question is a mistake, but that doesn't affect the confusion that is involved in this idiom (propagated, it seems, from the core).

From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 1:41:44 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

No, by definition. No idiom needed. Must I quote the definition of {pei} again?

"pei - CAI - emotion ? - attitudinal: attitudinal question; how do you feel about it? with what intensity?"

In the case of {.iepei}, the "it" is "agreement": {.iepei} = "how do you feel about agreement? with what intensity?" = "Do you agree, and with what intensity do you (dis)agree?"

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Idiomatically, yes; literally, more like what I said. And, as I have noted, idioms are anti-logical in the appropriate sense, since there is no mechanical rule to get them back to there logical form.

From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 1:10:39 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:06 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

But whether 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not thereby decided; it means "Yes, innit"

No, it means, "Do you agree, and with what intensity do you (dis)agree?"

--
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.

--
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.