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

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:20 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have, happily, finally figured out what y'all haven't been telling me: the
> fundamental meaning of the discursives is not first person expression, as
> the literature might lead one to believe, but merely to indicate a
> particular scale.

  Drat! I was (seriously) about to try that tack with you, saying that
I didn't see hte "firstpersonness" as being inherent in the UI.  But
that's what happens when I'm behind, and threads continuously evolve
and get pushed off deeper in the stack of gmail to read.

My SECONDARY tack would have been to say, "even IF firstpersonhood
were inherent in UI, what's the problem with a transformational word?
After all "a bu" doesn't mean "I'm saying a sumti
disjunction...whoops, I'm not, it's the letter A".    Nor does "re
mei" mean "there are two of... oh, wait, I mean something is a duet".
Plenty of lojban words completely change the meanings of preceeding
words.  Why can't "pei" mean, "if you were to say the previous word,
how would you do so, including any modifiers thereunto?"...or
something like that?  (I know, I know, that would be a whole bridi the
way I express, but hopefully, that's not gonn abe the sticking
point)."
              --gejyspa

-- 
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.