From lojbab@GREBYN.COM  Wed Jul 28 16:19:27 1993
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:19:23 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4740; Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:18:08 EDT
Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4109; Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:12:07 -0400
Date:         Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:10:29 EDT
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
Message-ID: <16Drx5SASkO.A.aT.K10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Are you aware that "no'e" is not best translated as "non" - that is "na'e".
"no'e" is neutral on the scale, neither really yes or no, or borderline,
and that is what I see as the essence of whole numbers wrt rationals.
Yeah they can be treated as rational numbers, but they aren't linguistically
what we think of when someone says "fractions".  They are on the other hand
NOT "non-fractions, but rather neutral on the fraction vs. non-fraction
scale.

The scalars are
je'a (strongly positive)
no'e (neutral)
na'e (non-)
to'e
(polar opposite, or radically non-)

lojbab