Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qNNPp-000021C; Mon, 11 Jul 94 18:37 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0927; Mon, 11 Jul 94 18:36:07 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0923; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 18:36:07 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8884; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 17:35:19 +0200 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 11:35:05 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: sumti categories To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199407072041.AA11675@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 7, 94 04:02:38 pm Content-Length: 990 Lines: 24 la kolin. pu cusku di'e > > (What about na'ipei for the linguist's "?" (doubtful grammaticality)? > > I'm not happy about it - I suspect we need a question word on the > > jo'a/na'i dimension) la xorxes. cusku di'e > How about {na'icu'i}? (Or {jo'acu'i}, depending which side you favour.) Well, it depends on what you want. "na'ipei" signals a question: To what degree is the following sentence pragmatically unacceptable? "peina'i" signals a related but different question: Is the following sentence pragmatically unacceptable? "na'icu'i", OTOH, affirms that the sentence is midway on the scale between acceptable and unacceptable. All these forms work equally well with "jo'a", of course; "jo'a" and "na'i" represent the same scale, and are given separate cmavo for reasons of compactness and avoidance of confusion ("na'inai" looks funny as an affirmation). -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.