On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:59 PM, John E Clifford <
kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> {The word (if you prefer that)
I'd prefer "phrase", since it's two words, not one, but nevermind.
You'll say I'm quibbling.
> 'uinai' is composed of the word 'ui' , used to
> express happiness, followed by the word 'nai', the polar negation; together
>they
> used, unsurprisingly to express the polar negation of happiness. Where is the
> problem with that?
There is no problem with that. "ui" is used to express something and
"uinai" is used to express something else. Those two things being
expressed are related in a way indicated by "nai", but one of them is
not part of the other in the way that the word "ui" is part of the
phrase "uinai".
> The point is that it is still a first person word,
Let's say that it is. Let's say that both "ui" and "uinai" are "first
person words" or "first person phrases".
Are you suggesting that there is a rule that a first person word
cannot be transformed into a non-first person word or phrase (assuming
that a question is not first person)? Where did that rule come from?
Of course "pei" changes the type of speech act of the phrase it
appears in, all Lojban question words do that.
> it
> expresses my sadness, whoever I may be in the situation, not yours or theirs.
Yes it does.
> The fact that we happen to have word for the polar negation of happiness is
> irrelevant -- there several words in these sets where that is not true, but
the
> forms work just the same.}
I'm not the least bit concerned about the English translation.
When a speaker says "uinai", they do not start by expressing
happiness. When a speaker says "uipei", they do not start by
expressing happiness. The type of speech act performed when saying
"uinai" is the same type of speech act as when saying "ui", agreed.
"nai" changes the meaning of the preceding word, (or more precisely
creates a phrase with a meaning related to but distinct from the
meaning of the preceding word) but the resulting phrase has the same
speech act potential as the unmodified word. "pei", on the other hand,
like all other question words, not only modifies the meaning of the
preceding word (or creates a phrase, etc) in a regular way, but it
also changes its illocutionary force. Nothing new or fancy about that.
> {Faked obtuseness does not become you, but OK. If the shift between word and
> _expression_ is puzzling, lets put it this way: 'uinai' is a word composed of
the
> word 'ui', which is used by a person to express his happiness, and the word
> 'nai', used to form the polar opposites of other words. The result is thus a
> word 'uinai' which is to be used by a person to express the polar opposite of
> happiness, sadness, as he is feeling it (putatively).
Right.
> 'uipei' is a word formed from 'ui' as above and 'pei' a word which asks about
a
> voiced item of the right sort ('ui' is) what degree of the the emotion (etc.)
>is
> intended. Combined then it would seem to mean that the person uttering it is
> expressing merely an uncertainty about where on the scale from happiness to
> sadness his feeling lie.
No, that's not what it means. It means that the person uttering it is
asking their interlocutor to express where on that scale they are
feeling like. But we've been over that already a dozen times.
> That seems a reasonable question ask sometimes, even
> if rarely. But that is not 'uipei' is reported to mean: it is expressing
> nothing and asking a second person to express (not state) where their feelings
> lie on that scale
Bingo!
> -- even though that second person may have shown no
> inclination to express anything at all on that scale. What miracle made this
> transformation?
The miracle of "pei".
What miracle turns English "Yeah!" into "Yeah?" I guess it's the
miracle of "?". Or maybe the miracle of intonation. Lojban usually
substitutes words for intonantion.
> {I know what it says*says*, but I also know what it usually means. One who
>asks
> "Do you agree" is asking for a commitment, not genuinely asking a factual
> question -- despite the form. 'ie' is thus even semantically acceptable.}
A: xu do tugni
B: ie
is exactly parallel to:
A: xu do gleki
B: ui
I'm still somewhat surprised that you are so strongly defending the
first while you would probably say that the second is riddled with
confusion.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
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.