Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:49:45 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote:

> >>> Adam Raizen <[email-masked]> 01/30/02 11:31pm >>>
> #la xod. cusku di'e
> #> You're stepping close to the heresy that certain brivla can be
> represented
> #> with UI. Welcome!
> #I'm not sure that I accept that 'ui' is exactly the same as 'sei gleki'.
>
> Indeed not. 'ui' is an expression of emotion; an uttered smile. 'Sei
> gleki' is a metalinguistic comment that is propositional in nature but
> does not contribute to the truth conditions of the sentence.

And ui, while not propositional (because the definition of "propositional"
used on this list is completely arbitrary), doesn't necessarily affect the
truth value. And, to utter "sei gleki" is an expression of an emotional
state.

About the only thing that can defensibly be said is that "gleki" is a
brivla while "ui" is not.

-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.