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 m0qNlVE-000022C; Tue, 12 Jul 94 20:20 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qNlVE-000022C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3525; Tue, 12 Jul 94 20:19:20 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3522; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 20:19:19 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2424; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 19:18:30 +0200
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 1994 18:20:26 BST
Reply-To:     i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK
Subject:      Re: sumti categories
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 542
Lines: 18

cu'u la kolin.
> na'ipei mi casnu li re
> "? We discuss the number two"

> (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)

cu'u la kau,n.
> "na'ipei" signals a question
...
> "na'icu'i", OTOH, affirms that the sentence is midway on the scale between
> acceptable and unacceptable.

I think what we _really_ mean in this context is more like {na'i ju'o cu'i} -
not so much a question as a declaration of uncertainty.

mi'e .i,n.