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

Well, I mean something boring like "Being expressed in the language of Logic". In that language, all factual information is conveyed in sentences (bridi). It is possible, however, to abbreviate sentences by definitions, provided that the sentence is recoverble (at least in theory -- I don't recommend trying to do this for the sentences in Go"del's incompleteness proof) by rule governed means. As for the rest of your questions, I find them confusing:"express" is a word that we have come to avoid in this discussion except as for exclamations indicating an emotion. And "relationship" is used as a thing-in-the-world and then as a sentence type (apparently). But I think the answer to the question buried there is that a reference to a relationship among objects should be made using a bridi.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 9:22:47 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

I'm confused. Could you define precisely what makes something "logical". It seems like I keep hearing things of the form "you're trying to do X and that's not logical". But what exactly do you mean by that? If I use something other than a bridi to express a relationship, does that automatically mean that it's not logical? Do all relationships HAVE to be made of bridi? Who says?

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:14 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

I suspect he means 'UIda'ai' which was apparently devised just for the purpose
given. But is illegitmate logically, without a whole mess of further
considerations. (see previous letter and my reply).

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 7:32:18 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

UIdai is *not* used to indicate another's UI-state, but the speaker's
UI-state and the fact that it is empathetic in nature.

--
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.

--
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.