Stela: I think you've got the heart of it there. I hadn't considered the idea that "now I have to go back and read it again with a happy voice" is itself malgli. It should be in my head that "oh, this word is followed by '.ui'. That (instead of a rising voice or some such) makes it a happy word".
Haha, reminds me of one of the first criticisms I heard from a friend about lojban. I was explaining UI to him and he says "wait. So if you're murderously enraged at someone you would say 'blah blah blah <word for angry> blah blah blah' (spoken in a flat mono-tone voice)? That's just stupid". At the time I started backpedaling and saying "no no no, you should still intone your voice to show your feelings. UI is just there to make the text/dialog more obvious or something". But maybe "do xlarai .o'onaicai" and "DO XLARAI!!!!!!! (spoken)" should be heard the same way. Almost make the tone of voice be the thing that's optional/a hint.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Krzysztof Sobolewski
<jezuch@interia.pl> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 10 lipca 2011 o 20:44:58 Luke Bergen napisał(a):
> Does anyone know why the decision was made to make UI modify the preceding
> word instead of the followimg word like so many other constructs do? Seems
> like if UI did that then the problem could be solved by doing "doi alyn xuku
> do klama"
My theory is that it's almost necessary if you want to make it easy to modify an entire bridi instead of a single word. So now you usually say things like {.ui mi facki lo mi mapku}, stating up-front your happiness that affects the entire bridi. How would you do that if UI affected the following word?
--
Ecce Jezuch
"If she hands me my head on a plate, how will I take it
If I'm scared?" - D. Pinnick
----------------------------------------------------------------
Znajdz samochod idealny dla siebie!
Szukaj >> http://linkint.pl/f29e2