Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

21 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.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 7:33:10 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

When you use ".oi" as a verb like that is when you send pc into a fit.

Neither saying ".oi" nor saying ".oidai" require that you feel
anything. People seem terribly confused sometimes about the difference
between feeling X, expressing X and claiming that they feel X. They
are three different things.

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 7:45:11 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Well, empathy does require exactly that you feel "the same" emotion.  Incidentally, your last remark, using 'oi' as a verb, is exactly the problem that that I am worried about and your use suggest that my worry is not unfounded.

Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 10:58:07 PM

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

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 7:49:56 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Exactly, and the latter two are linguistic but of very different linguistic
types.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 6:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

--

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 8:34:59 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 9:49 AM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Exactly, and the latter two are linguistic but of very different linguistic
> types.

I would say that expressing may or may not be linguistic, and that it
is not a linguistic type that contrasts with claiming.

Suppose that John is surprised. That is obviously not a linguistic
matter, it's just something that happens. But John may express his
surprise in many different ways:

(1) By opening his mouth very widely.
(2) By saying "Holy shit!"
(3) By saying "I am truly surprised."
(4) By doing all of the above.

All of those are perfectly good ways to express surprise. (1) is
non-linguistic, (2) and (3) are linguistic. (3) also makes a claim,
but all can be used to express surprise. (2) is linguistic but does
not make any claim.

Saying "ue" is of course like (2). It is a linguistic way of
expressing surprise, not by making a claim but by making an
exclamation.

Also, not all UIs are used to make exclamations, which is one of the
unwarranted overgeneralizations that are sometimes made. UIs have
several other uses.

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 9:43:00 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Right as usual; I apologize for generalizing beyond the data. My only
disagreement would be over whether "I am truly surprised" must make a claim any
more than "I hope he comes" does.As for UI, the interesting question is whether
all are expressions of some emotion (in a veeerry broad sense). Some of them
typically are combined with sentences and affect the status of that sentence,
but the whole might still reasonably be called an expression. There are a few
that are harder to place.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 7:34:59 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

--

Craig Daniel

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:01:38 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

I always understood it as expressing empathy with the perceived oi,
which can't possibly mean you feel oinai. There is absolutely a
difference between recognizing pain in somebody else and empathizing
with it!

I'm sorta with JEC on this one, in that UI should be expressing your
emotion, but if da'oi is really just about expressing your empathy
with a specified person then it makes total sense to me. Some
da'oi-advocates seem to indicate that this is what it is - something
semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent of dai
(although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Although
if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of resetting the
referent of "do"?) Some seem to want it to mean "I believe so-and-so
feels the emotion indicated by saying whatever attitudinal (or,
apparently from some example sentences, string of attitudinals -
something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or after
oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotional
state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts about the world,
not expressing your own feelings; statements of fact or belief like
that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cmavo
whose advocates can't agree on what it means, because that kind of
imprecision is incompatible with what the non-experimental parts of
the language strive to be (although they have sometimes been every bit
as murky in their own way), so you can put me in the anti-da'oi bin
until you guys make up your mind.

The notion that saying "no, da'oi shouldn't work like that even though
nothing else does" is telling you that there's no good way to say
"ooh, that must have hurt" in Lojban is just silly, because nobody but
you seems resistant to using the vast majority of the grammar in the
way it was intended - the "ooh" is an English UIesque interjection
about the *speaker's* emotion, and the rest of the sentence is a
declarative sentence and really ought to be translated as one. The
emotional gismu were created for a reason.

That said (tangent warning!), I think there's quite a difference
between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an unexpected party is
much more akin to the former, and is not empathizing with anything at
all. It is not a perceived emotion, but an intended one. If it is to
be expressed with a UI at all, and I'm not sure it needs to be, it's
definitely not one modified with dai (or da'oi, if that's a
specified-referent dai relative).

Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for
intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synonymous, and
ueblah conveys something like "this is said/done with the intent that
it will be surprising!" But such a hypothetical cmavo is not and
should not be confused with dai. If da'oi is a semantically dai-like
cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quickly get a
corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-intent
cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easily say "spaji
.ai" in the three syllables needed for any experimental cmavo not
starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji
da'oi."

- mi'e .kreig.

* John: by "oiing" in this context I mean "expressing pain through
the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it's an English
shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" rather than for "cortu."

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:25:17 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Yup! Except, again, that the English sentence "That must hurt" may well be part
of the expression as well (the "must" is a clue that this is not merely
descriptive). I think that something like 'da'oi' is useful (for expressing
empathetic emotions, etc. with third parties) but can't see why 'dai' (possibly
with a change of selma'o) couldn't fill the bill, defaulting to 'do'.

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Daniel <craigb...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:01:38 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

- mi'e .kreig.

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:34:39 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Ok, I see where you're going.  So "oooo, that looked like it hurt" might become something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu".  I suppose.  It's just unfortunate that there's this rich exclamation system that I can only use to indicate my own emotional state.  But I guess it makes sense and I should stop trying to shoehorn .ui and friends into shortcuts for bridi that involve do.... or just say .uipeipaunai =p

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:36:48 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I do worry about the notion that 'zo'o' is predictive. I suspect that it is
more often a warning: I don't expect that you will be amused but I do mean this
in a humorous way. Nor do I think that "Surprise" is predictive; it is closer
to a performative: the utterance constitutes (or is a significant part of) the
surprise, which is intended to engender a feeling of surprise in the recipient.

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Daniel <craigb...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:01:38 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

- mi'e .kreig.

--

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:41:14 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Still not clear what the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this.


From: Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:34:39 AM

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

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:56:15 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sunday 28 November 2010 10:25:17 John E Clifford wrote:
> Yup! Except, again, that the English sentence "That must hurt" may well be
> part of the expression as well (the "must" is a clue that this is not
> merely descriptive). I think that something like 'da'oi' is useful (for
> expressing empathetic emotions, etc. with third parties) but can't see why
> 'dai' (possibly with a change of selma'o) couldn't fill the bill,
> defaulting to 'do'.

What does "dai" after "pei" default to?

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:58:56 AM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

It means exactly what it looks like.  Pei asks the receiver how much or if at all they are feeling the .ui and then the paunai says "but that wasn't a question".  In other words, I would read it as an exclamation of "I know to what extent or whether or not you are feeling .ui".  In other words, a cheap way of expressing .ui for them, or rather expressing that I know the extent to which they could accuratly express .ui (be it cai, cu'i or nai)

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 1:34:44 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai', not a separate speech act.  I was reading your phrase as three, not two.  But whose 'ui' is it?  The fact that it is an expression seems to mean it is the speaker's.  The fact that the speakers asks about its intensity seems to require that it is not , even if the question is rhetorical.  If it were an expression of the listener's emotions (which it cannot be, by definition), then the complete complex speech act of asking a rhetorical question would indeed imply something what your sentence says (reading it generously) or perhaps that I don't really
care about your feelings at all.  But I see no reason to think it actually works that way nor that, even if it did, it would imply your putative sentence.  The problem with the sentence is just the root problem of this whole issue, the use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb elsewhere).  It is an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling huzzah".  If it makes any sense at all, it means something like "feels like wanting to say 'ui'" or so.  But it is a totally opaque way of saying that and Logjam (the logical language, before all) is meant to be transparent (at least to the extent of having its opacities clarifiable by following a few, mainly logical, rules).  So, this expression is not and should not be a part of Lojban.

Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:58:56 AM

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 1:40:13 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in other words, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener is.
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 1:52:14 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
But it "says" (not really) "How much happiness do I express?"  You are saying that this is an idiom, an expression totally detached from its base meanin in an illogical way and tucked into the grammar (and semantics and pragmatics) of the logical language.  Nice to have a short expression for that, I suppose, since we have others for other conventional greetings (and in that case, the 'paunai' is definitely called for).  But wouldn't just 'pei' do as well -- or better -- and be shorter, too?


From: Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 12:40:13 PM

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 2:26:22 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
No it doesn't.

"pei - CAI - emotion ? - attitudinal: attitudinal question; how do you feel about it? with what intensity?"

It "says" "How much happiness do YOU express?"

{pei} by itself would be asking about emotion in general, and can be answered by, for examples, {.iinai}, {.aucu'i}, {.o'icai}, etc., whereas {.uipei} is asking about happiness specifically, anything on the .ui scale is a sensical answer, but only that which lies on the .ui scale.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 4:08:06 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Craig Daniel <craigb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Although
> if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of resetting the
> referent of "do"?)

"mi'e" is in COI and does not have that effect. The reason to put
"da'oi" in COI/DOI is because of its syntactic behaviour, not because
of it's meaning. It clearly does not create a vocative like almost all
the other COIs do.

> That said (tangent warning!), I think there's quite a difference
> between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an unexpected party is
> much more akin to the former, and is not empathizing with anything at
> all. It is not a perceived emotion, but an intended one. If it is to
> be expressed with a UI at all, and I'm not sure it needs to be, it's
> definitely not one modified with dai (or da'oi, if that's a
> specified-referent dai relative).

That's true. But human beings are imitative creatures, so a common way
of inducing (or trying to induce) an emotion in someone is by
expressing that emotion yourself. So while "u'i" and "zo'o" do have
different definitions, their use is not that far appart, because you
can't very credibly say that something is meant as humor but you are
not amused, or express amusement and deny that you mean it to be
humorous.

Another similar case is (the way I use) ".o'i", which is not so much
to express a feeling of caution as to induce that feeling in someone
else, by the same mechanism of contagion.

> Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for
> intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synonymous, and
> ueblah conveys something like "this is said/done with the intent that
> it will be surprising!" But such a hypothetical cmavo is not and
> should not be confused with dai.

I don't see a need, because the distinction between ".u'i" and "zo'o",
while understandable, has always seemed somewhat artificial. What does
it mean when someone adds a smiley to something they write? That they
find it amusing or that they want others to find it amusing? What does
it mean when you say something with a smile? Is it really worth making
such a subtle distinction?

> If da'oi is a semantically dai-like
> cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quickly get a
> corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-intent
> cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easily say "spaji
> .ai" in the three syllables needed for any experimental cmavo not
> starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji
> da'oi."

I will leave that to TV show scriptwriters (those surprise parties
where the lights are suddenly turned on and everyone says "surprise!"
only happen in TV shows, don't they?) For more natural scenarios, I
think empathetic surprise works well.

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 4:10:52 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
So, the question is how a word that expresses the speaker's emotions comes to have a propositional function: How are you feeling on the happiness scale?.I assume one of the reasons for using this idiom is that this question is hard to formulate as a full sentence.  The word for "happy" probably doesn't have a place for quantitative measure, nor are such measures easy to formulate and turning that all into a question raises extra problems.-- all soluble, of course, but taking a moment's thought. So, here is a cute dodge; never mind it literally makes no sense (indeed, a mark of a good idiom).  The other UICAI are expressions of MY emotion; this is now suddenly of YOURS which, of course makes no sense.  The problems seems to lie ultimately with 'pei' itself: it calls upon a person to express his emotion, but not as an expression of an emotion, rather as an factual answer to a factual question -- which just isn't an expression's job (again, an expression can be sincere or not, but it can't be true or false). Of course, once we start looking at cmavo for sensibility, the task could be a very long one, so I'll leave 'pei' be as totally useless in the real Logjam, but perhaps fitting into some illogical argot on the periphery.



From: Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 1:26:22 PM

John E Clifford

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 4:26:27 PM11/28/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Impeccable as your Lojban is, your descriptions of human behavior leave
something to be desired, mainly accuracy. Saying something is meant as humor
but I am not amused is one of the most common moves in watching and critiquing
tv shows, for one example, and being ammused by something that was not meant to
be funny is a painful memory from both sides for most people. The encouraging
imitation use of expressions is an interesting theory, but doesn't seem to fit
the facts very well, at least for the "surprise" case, where the person will be
surprised (or not) even if nothing is said (the emotion is inherent in the
situation). The 'o'i' case is better, but then, the emotion of caution seems
an odd concept from the get-go.
In the US at least surprise parties of the dark room-lights up-shout "surprise"
sort are common enough to be a recognized listing on incident reports: murders,
beating, heart attacks, etc.


----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 3:08:06 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation