From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 6:31:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why not, given that it is built on 'ie'?
Gee, I hope someone can do better than xorxes.
Because of the bloody definition of the bloody word {pei}.
UIdai is used to indicate another's UI-state, why do you have such a problem with UIpei, which is used to ask about it?
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 5:39:45 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
No. {.iepei} Does not refer to the speaker at all.
.xorxes. describes this much better than I could.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Okay, the "I agree. How do you feel about that? With what intensity?" A better question, but surely the answer will not be 'iecai' (nor should it be -- but then that shouldn't have been the question either).
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 3:28:44 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
That is what the definition of {pei} is.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
That may be what you (think you) are doing, but it is not what you said.
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 3:19:33 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
No, it's asking the listener how much the listener agrees.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Right, it asking the listener how much the speaker agrees. And that is a proper question, not some fiddle-faddle off in CAI. But a remarkably dumb question in most contexts. It would be better to get a nice snappy way of saying "how much in proper bridi form, rather than the runaround not required, so that one could simply say 'do togni ---?' Maybe that is 'pei' but then it is probably in the wrong selma'o.
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 3:11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
Okay, no. Just no. It's "You agree how much?" or "How much do you agree?" It is asking a question of the listener. Every other question word in Lojban is asking the LISTENER, not the speaker. {pei} is no different in that respect.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:58 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
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).
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 )
--
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 )
--
--
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 )
--
--
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 )
--
--
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 )
--
--
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 )
--
--
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.