Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 1:45:47 PM11/27/10
to lojba...@lojban.org

That's actually not what I intend but it is what will inevitably happen.

I was talking to my wife who is perpetually freezing and at one point I remembered somehing and wanted to say "oh yeah!  Your dad said he was going to make a fire tonight _____".  Where "______" was that cool new cmavo of COI that takes a UI before it and somehow applies it to the object of the COI.  I've searched around but must be using the wrong search terms.  Anybody remember what I'm talking about?

What I'm trying to express is something like what you want to express when you play peekaboo with a baby.  It's like some kind of .uadai like "surprise!"  But it's not a command or an observation, but more of like an expectation.  Almost like a .uipeikau if that makes any sense?

Remo Dentato

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 2:14:03 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
jbovlaste has {da'oi} : http://vlasisku.lojban.org/da%27oi is it what you mean?

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 3:12:12 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Well, this raises the interesting OT issue of what exactly something like "peekaboo" is linguistically.  It seems to be related to "taDA" and magicians' exclamations when the the trick comes off, but it seems to have a bit more content than some attention getter in COI, since the seeing is vital.  And, of course, I am not sure what the linguistic status of the supposedly similar things is either.  Come to think of it, there is a double seeing here -- the child sees the parent again and the parent sees the child ("I see you" maybe left over from its origin in a hide-and-seek game).  "Surprise" seems to be a totally different sort of thing. Or maybe no so different: it too is used to announce the completion of a trick (even if the recipient is not surprised).  But it clearly is not, as this note implies, a case of the speaker empathetically experiencing the emotion of the recipient -- the speaker, a part of the party, is not surprised.  He might be joyful and also experience some empathetic joy with the recipient, but that isn't surprise. I'd be happy to hear more suggestions about this.
I would not be happy to see cmavo used to indicate emotions of a third party not empathized by the speaker.



From: Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com>
To: "lojba...@lojban.org" <lojba...@lojban.org>
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 12:45:47 PM
Subject: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

That's actually not what I intend but it is what will inevitably happen.

I was talking to my wife who is perpetually freezing and at one point I remembered somehing and wanted to say "oh yeah!  Your dad said he was going to make a fire tonight _____".  Where "______" was that cool new cmavo of COI that takes a UI before it and somehow applies it to the object of the COI.  I've searched around but must be using the wrong search terms.  Anybody remember what I'm talking about?

What I'm trying to express is something like what you want to express when you play peekaboo with a baby.  It's like some kind of .uadai like "surprise!"  But it's not a command or an observation, but more of like an expectation.  Almost like a .uipeikau if that makes any sense?

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 3:25:56 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Yep, da'oi is exactly what I was looking for.  ki'e la .remo.

See, john that's actually what I AM looking for.  I expect that's somewhat how da'oi to be used.

I would read a magician saying ".ue.u'e da'oi [do]" as something like english "tada" or as a shortcut for the lojban ".ue.u'epeikau" like "surprised and in awe, aintcha".  This seems like a really handy feature to me.

On Nov 27, 2010 3:12 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 3:37:09 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
But, of course, "surprised and in awe, aintcha" is merely a derived sentence fragment, not an expression of a feeling.  The magician is not surprised or awed, nor does he feel that of the watcher empathetically.  He may feel nothing at all or pride in duping the rubes or embarrassment for the same reason and so on.  I agree that 'da'oi' as described is what you are looking for but you are looking in the wrong place -- it ain't in UI and related things but in plain old bridi, describing the emotions of another.  'da'oi' is merely a conceptual mistake brought on by the ever-renewed habit of using UI instead of bridi.  Notice, "surprised and in awe" can be denied, declared false; a UI cannot (though it may be genuine or faked).


From: Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 2:25:56 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:01:50 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

So what you're saying is, in english when I see someone faceplant and say "oooooo, that looked like it hurt", there simply isn't a way to say this in lojban.  I don't feel pain so {.oiro'odai ta simlu lo ka cortu} is wrong.  To translate english "ooooo" in this context, how would YOU say it john?  In lojban please.  For me, using lojban in everyday life, being able to assert that others UI (with the implicit pe'i) like in ".oiro'o da'oi la nik ta simlu lo ka cortu (where nick has just faceplanted)" is hella useful. 

So just for clarification from other users of da'oi, am I doing it right? Or should I just start using {.oipeikau} (dunno why I hadn't thought of that before).

On Nov 27, 2010 3:37 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Remo Dentato

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:17:04 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So just for clarification from other users of da'oi, am I doing it right? Or
> should I just start using {.oipeikau} (dunno why I hadn't thought of that
> before).

I've not used {da'oi} yet but being of selma'o DOI I expect I'll use it like:

{mi viska da'oi .liuk. .ue }

to indicate that you were surprise that I had seen you, and

{mi viska doi .liuk. .ue }

to indicate that I was surprised to see you.

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:23:41 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Before I translate it into Lojban, I want to know what you mean by it.  As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand (da'oi).  It appears to be a expression of an emotion, either a sympathetic one of pain ("Owie") or a primary one of some level of discomfort ("Eeew"), followed by a declarative sentence (the expression goes with but does not modify the sentence) about how something looks (presumably open wounds, perhaps contorted face, perhaps just knowledge of how that event has felt when you did what looked like the same thing).  But none of this involves  the use of 'da'oi': the sentence is just a sentence and the long o is either a UI or a UI dai depending.on which expression you meant.

Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 3:01:50 PM

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

So what you're saying is, in english when I see someone faceplant and say "oooooo, that looked like it hurt", there simply isn't a way to say this in lojban.  I don't feel pain so {.oiro'odai ta simlu lo ka cortu} is wrong.  To translate english "ooooo" in this context, how would YOU say it john?  In lojban please.  For me, using lojban in everyday life, being able to assert that others UI (with the implicit pe'i) like in ".oiro'o da'oi la nik ta simlu lo ka cortu (where nick has just faceplanted)" is hella useful. 

So just for clarification from other users of da'oi, am I doing it right? Or should I just start using {.oipeikau} (dunno why I hadn't thought of that before).

On Nov 27, 2010 3:37 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:24:25 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Oh, from vlasisku I thought that the /preceding/ UI was what was dai'ed to the DOIed person.  E.g. "mi viska do .ue da'oi la .remo." for "I see you aren't you surprised la remo" vs "mi viska do .ue doi la .remo."  -> "I see you (surprised that it's /you/), remo"

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:27:19 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
And what emotion (etc.) did the speaker feel when the listener was surprised to
see him? Nothing relevant comes to mind and it very probably was not surprise,
even empathetically.


----- Original Message ----
From: Remo Dentato <rden...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 3:17:04 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

--

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:33:21 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
But the first is just two sentences (maybe the second is a rhetorical question, but probably not) and the second just an ordinary UI attached to a vocative to indicate (pragmatically) that the surprise is at the identity of the object in view.  So, in the first 'da'oi' is misused (or rather used according to instruction even though the instructions make no sense) and the second doesn't even need the empathetic modifier, let alone the more remote connection that 'da'oi' suggests.

Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 3:24:25 PM

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

Remo Dentato

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:40:38 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, from vlasisku I thought that the /preceding/ UI was what was dai'ed to
> the DOIed person.  E.g. "mi viska do .ue da'oi la .remo." for "I see you
> aren't you surprised la remo" vs "mi viska do .ue doi la .remo."  -> "I see
> you (surprised that it's /you/), remo"

Well, vlasisku just says that {da'oi} assigns UI to someone else than
the speaker and it is part of the DOI selma'o. So my understanding is
that like {doi} sets who the listener is, {da'oi} sets who the
"feeler" is. Then the UI of that sentence are tied to the preceding
sumti.

John, UI and brivla are not substitutes one of the other. If I use a
UI to express an emotion is to convey something different than just
"sayng" that the emotion is felt.

If in a natural language I would say something like "I love Alice" I
would translate with "mi prami la .alis." but if I would say "Oh! How
I love Alice!" I would render it with "mi la ,alis..au prami". I might
get it wrong but it seems to me that you consider UI as a bad idea.

.remod.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:42:33 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Here you go.  I leave for work and then 20 minutes later I come home for some reason to find remo putting the moves on my wife.  So I sneak into the room with a baseball bat and think "oh perfect opportunity to use my lojban IRL".  So I bust in bat a blazin' and say "do na kanpe lo nu mi cazi sevxruti .iicai.ue da'oi la .remo.  .i ko mrobi'o doi pe'a kalci".

Ignoring the fact that I don't know what remo looks like, this seems like a decent example of "da'oi"s usage

On Nov 27, 2010 4:33 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Remo Dentato

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:42:50 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:27 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And what emotion (etc.) did the speaker feel when the listener was surprised to
> see him?  Nothing relevant comes to mind and it very probably was not surprise,
> even empathetically.

Exactly. The speaker emotion in {mi viska da'oi .liuk. .ue } is not
specified. There's no need for it: either the speaker doesn't want to
say or it is clear from the context.

Remo Dentato

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:44:37 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here you go.  I leave for work and then 20 minutes later I come home for
> some reason to find remo putting the moves on my wife.  So I sneak into the
> room with a baseball bat and think "oh perfect opportunity to use my lojban
> IRL".  So I bust in bat a blazin' and say "do na kanpe lo nu mi cazi
> sevxruti .iicai.ue da'oi la .remo.  .i ko mrobi'o doi pe'a kalci".

Let me say I'm really happy you though of such a long sentence. I
might have the opportunity to ran away before you finish saying it! :)

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:49:12 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Well obviously this is what I'd be yelling WHILE I was running into the room "bat a blazin' "  ;)

And the bit I was talking about earlier is that vlasisku says that it takes the preceding attitudinal (note that it is singular attitudinal).  So I would read "mi viska do .ue da'oi la .remo. .ui" as "I see you" with you being surprised and me being happy

On Nov 27, 2010 4:44 PM, "Remo Dentato" <rden...@gmail.com> wrote:

Remo Dentato

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 4:58:58 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And the bit I was talking about earlier is that vlasisku says that it takes
> the preceding attitudinal (note that it is singular attitudinal).

You're right, I had missed that part. We should ask to the creator of
that cmavo, if he/she is still around here ....

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 5:05:12 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
No, UI, properly used, was a great idea (I'm not too sure about some of the
Lojban elaborations, but the idea is still excellent). It allows us to make
distinctions that are impossible in English (well, very hard, any how). Take an
English sentence (I think this works for most naturla languages in the case of
at least some emotions) "I am sorry I spilled the drink". Assuming for the
moment that I did spill the drink (what happens if I didn't goes off in into
philosophical cloud-cuckoo-land), this sentences has two different uses. On is
a *report* about how I feel -- it may be true or false, depending upon whether I
really do feel sorry. The other is an *expression* of my regret. the latter is
neither true nor false (though it may be sincere or not); it has the same
logical force as "Oops."
As for the difference between saying that someone else has an emotion (that I do
not share empathetically) and .... what? It can't be expressing an emotion
since, by the assumption, I don't feel it, and have no reason to fake it (and
with love, for example, good reasons not to around her bruiser boyfriend).


----- Original Message ----
From: Remo Dentato <rden...@gmail.com>

To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 3:40:38 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

.remod.

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 5:06:15 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Looks like it was entered into jbovlaste by daniel.  I'm assuming that's dbrockman

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 5:11:27 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Then what is getting expressed by the 'ue'?. It isn't the speakers emotion, so
he can't express it, and the person who has the emotion can't express it, since
he is not the speaker. I can imagine making a kind of sentence that was built
on what other people would express if they were the speaker and even include the
UI in it somewhere (in quotes, preferably, but we have gotten a ways away from
accuracy of this sort). Indeed, we have such sentences, even in English "He
would say 'ue'" for example.

----- Original Message ----
From: Remo Dentato <rden...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 3:42:50 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

--

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 5:14:50 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Same old question: do you empathize with his surprise.  If yes, then you only need 'da'; if no,then you need a whole sentence, and the 'a'oi' snippet is not a recognized sentence, I think.

Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 3:49:12 PM

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

Well obviously this is what I'd be yelling WHILE I was running into the room "bat a blazin' "  ;)

And the bit I was talking about earlier is that vlasisku says that it takes the preceding attitudinal (note that it is singular attitudinal).  So I would read "mi viska do .ue da'oi la .remo. .ui" as "I see you" with you being surprised and me being happy

On Nov 27, 2010 4:44 PM, "Remo Dentato" <rden...@gmail.com> wrote:

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 5:17:17 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
You might also ask him what the Hell he thought he was doing.  Maybe he has an explanation that is not flat out contradictory..

Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 4:06:15 PM

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

Oren

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 6:39:17 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I see the immediate utility and expressive freedom granted by { da'oi
} and no rock-solid argument that non-experimental cmavo can do the
same.

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 7:00:09 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
It's not doing a cmavo's job, but a bridi's. As I say, if you want to work up a
sentence type that does this, go ahead. But, in keeping with the logical
language idea, do make it look like a sentence and not a UI or a cmavo smashup.
For clarity, the UI should appear either in quotes or not at all.

----- Original Message ----
From: Oren <get....@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 5:39:17 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 7:02:01 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Now that I've remembered the absurdly useful "kau", my understanding of da'oi is that it is basically a shortcut for ... peikau doi...  e.g.  "do flira farlu .oiro'o da'oi la .nik."  =  "do flira farlu .oiro'opeikau doi la .nik."

On Nov 27, 2010 6:39 PM, "Oren" <get....@gmail.com> wrote:

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 7:05:49 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Good luck using lojban outside of a computer program, john.

"I see that you have injured yourself.  I imagine that you must feel extreme pain.  You have my sympothy selrirni"

On Nov 27, 2010 7:00 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 7:29:57 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Well, perhaps good luck to you using it inside a program, since violation of type tend to lead to chaos (if you're very lucky).  If I only wanted to describe my emotions, what you write would be quite alright.  But, chances are, I have some emotions in this situation that I want to express and then  -- in English or Lojban -- I would probably put in some words that express them.  Your last sentence is, in fact, one such expression (it can also be used as a report and this is what makes English so messy and is the source of the muck-up in Lojban, like Loglan before it).



From: Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 6:05:49 PM

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

Good luck using lojban outside of a computer program, john.

"I see that you have injured yourself.  I imagine that you must feel extreme pain.  You have my sympothy selrirni"

On Nov 27, 2010 7:00 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 8:13:16 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday 27 November 2010 16:17:04 Remo Dentato wrote:
> I've not used {da'oi} yet but being of selma'o DOI I expect I'll use it
> like:
>
> {mi viska da'oi .liuk. .ue }
>
> to indicate that you were surprise that I had seen you, and
>
> {mi viska doi .liuk. .ue }
>
> to indicate that I was surprised to see you.

If "da'oi" is in selma'o DOI, does that make cmevla like "mada'oitik" invalid?

Pierre

--
Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 8:17:12 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

I would think so.  I never though about that.  I guess that'd mean that maki'etik would be problamatic as well.  Never thought of that.  COI is a fairly large selma'o too.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 8:20:11 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that I've remembered the absurdly useful "kau", my understanding of
> da'oi is that it is basically a shortcut for ... peikau doi...  e.g.  "do
> flira farlu .oiro'o da'oi la .nik."  =  "do flira farlu .oiro'opeikau doi la
> .nik."

Not quite. "da'oi" can be used to express empathy with a third party,
while "doi" only idenifies your interlocutor. "da'oi" is an expanded
"dai", such that "dai"="da'oi zo'e".

Also, you may be confusing "kau" with "paunai". "kau" outside of a
subordinate clause will tell you "whatever the answer to this question
is", it is not "this is a rhetorical question". So "oipeikau" is more
like "whether you like it or not, it doesn't really matter what your
answer is".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 8:24:11 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
>
> If "da'oi" is in selma'o DOI, does that make cmevla like "mada'oitik" invalid?

It should be in COI. In any case, with dot-side it's really a moot point.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 8:29:24 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Yeah, my understanding of kau has never been very solid though it seems really handy.  It's a shame that I don't /really/ get it. 

Yeah, I guess paunai makes more sense.  Though I though that it marked that a question was to follow (or not with nai).  Is it ok to say paunai to say that the /preceding/ question isn't really a question at all?

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 8:43:04 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Is it ok to say paunai to say
> that the /preceding/ question isn't really a question at all?

Yes, you can use "paunai" at the beginning of the bridi, to announce
that the question that follows is just rhetorical, so not really
something you expect an answer to, or you can use it directly after
the question word itself.

John E. Clifford

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 10:56:47 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Thanks! That clarifies matters nicely. So 'da'oi' just marks the speaker's empathetic sharing of the emotion of someone other than the you in the situation. So no problem with that. There is a problem, however, if the move is made from this expression of my second-hand emotion to either a claim that the third party is feeling that emotion or an expression of that third party's emotion. It is not clear which of these -- or something else -- the various participants in this discussion are proposing but what they say seems to be one or the other or the two mixed in some not very useful way. In any case, I take it that, in fact, both are quite correctly not supported in the actual system.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 27, 2010, at 19:20, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that I've remembered the absurdly useful "kau", my understanding of
da'oi is that it is basically a shortcut for ... peikau doi... e.g. "do
flira farlu .oiro'o da'oi la .nik." = "do flira farlu .oiro'opeikau doi la.nik."

Not quite. "da'oi" can be used to express empathy with a third party,
while "doi" only idenifies your interlocutor. "da'oi" is an expanded
"dai", such that "dai"="da'oi zo'e".

Also, you may be confusing "kau" with "paunai". "kau" outside of a
subordinate clause will tell you "whatever the answer to this question
is", it is not "this is a rhetorical question". So "oipeikau" is more
like "whether you like it or not, it doesn't really matter what your
answer is".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 11:58:07 PM11/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

So long as empathy doesn't require that I feel the actual emotion myself, I'm fine with that.  I don't want to say .oidai and accidentally imply that I .oi

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 12:13:11 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday 27 November 2010 20:17:12 Luke Bergen wrote:
> I would think so. I never though about that. I guess that'd mean that
> maki'etik would be problamatic as well. Never thought of that. COI is a
> fairly large selma'o too.

The rule about substrings of cmevla applies only to selma'o LA and DOI, not
COI. One should therefore write me'o denpa bu between COI and a cmevla. I
often forget though.

mu'omi'e .pier.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 7:25:43 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:56 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks!  That clarifies matters nicely. So 'da'oi' just marks the speaker's empathetic sharing of the emotion of someone other than the you in the situation.

It could also be with the you (and "dai" could also be with someone
other than the you.) "da'oi" just allows you to be explicit about who
it is with.

> So no problem with that.  There is a problem, however, if the move is made from this expression of my second-hand emotion to either a claim that the third party is feeling that emotion or an expression of that third party's emotion.

Right, "da'oi" is not used to make any claims. But if I hear you
expressing empathy with X on attitude Y, I can legitimetely conclude
that you are attributing attitude Y to X. It is of course impossible
to conclude from that that X actually does have that attitude. There
are a million reasons why you may be attributing that attitude to
them. I cannot even conclude that you really think they have that
attitude, since in some contexts it is perfectly sensible to attribute
attitudes that you know they don't have (tongue-in-cheek, humor,
deceit, etc.)

>It is not clear which of these -- or something else -- the various participants in this discussion are proposing but what they say seems to be one or the other or the two mixed in some not very useful way.  In any case, I take it that, in fact, both are quite correctly not supported in the actual system.

I really don't see what all the brouhaha about this is.

In the case of "peekaboo!", I would just say "ua". Not because I'm
actually discovering anything, but because I'm expressing "discovery"
for the benefit of the baby.

In the case of the magician's "surprise!", "uedai" is perfectly fine,
not because the magician is actually surprised, but because acting
surprised is part of their act. Of course it depends on the magician,
some may prefer acting cool and detached, others pretend to be as
surprised as their audience, or even more surprised, in which case a
first hand "ue" might be even more appropriate. Magicians are
performers, and what they say is part of their performance.