From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:37 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 11 May 1993 16:08:01 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7394; Tue, 11 May 93 16:07:22 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2444; Tue, 11 May 93 15:22:14 EST Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 15:19:49 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: only; scalar negation of numbers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 11 11:19:49 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: In one of my postings during the discussion of "only" last month, I suggested that some of the non-specific numbers (so'a, du'e, etc.) might better be seen as degrees along the scalar axis in selma'o NAhE, and that if these were moved to NAhE, AND if scalar negation of numbers were possible, that the result might solve some "only" problems as well as increase expressive possibilites for the language. The idea met with resopunding silence. Does this mean it is dead? No interest, or that people din't understand it, or that John needs to report on what the ggrammatical implications are before people can really consider it (or all of the above, or none ...) The related question probably still is whether scalar negation of numbers is allowed and/or desirable (A goat is belegged by other-than-four legs??? I have to admit that I'm not sure what the polar opposite of 4, is though %^) lojbab