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

[Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, from vlasisku I thought that the /preceding/ UI was what was dai'ed to
> the DOIed person.  E.g. "mi viska do .ue da'oi la .remo." for "I see you
> aren't you surprised la remo" vs "mi viska do .ue doi la .remo."  -> "I see
> you (surprised that it's /you/), remo"

Well, vlasisku just says that {da'oi} assigns UI to someone else than
the speaker and it is part of the DOI selma'o. So my understanding is
that like {doi} sets who the listener is, {da'oi} sets who the
"feeler" is. Then the UI of that sentence are tied to the preceding
sumti.

John, UI and brivla are not substitutes one of the other. If I use a
UI to express an emotion is to convey something different than just
"sayng" that the emotion is felt.

If in a natural language I would say something like "I love Alice" I
would translate with "mi prami la .alis." but if I would say "Oh! How
I love Alice!" I would render it with "mi la ,alis..au prami". I might
get it wrong but it seems to me that you consider UI as a bad idea.

.remod.

-- 
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.