From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199407111535.AA06327@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: sumti categories To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 11:35:05 -0400 (ADT) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199407072041.AA11675@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 7, 94 04:02:38 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 965 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 11 11:35:20 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab 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.